Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00041/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00041-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,

Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation.

_________________________________

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Carla Henry v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,

et al.,

No. CV 10-2082-PHX-FJM

and 

Nicolin Dedecker v. Matrixx Initiatives,

Inc., et al.,

No. CV 11-0041-PHX-FJM.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice the claims of

plaintiff Carla Henry Carla Henry v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., No. CV 10-2082-PHXFJM, and Nicolin Dedecker, Nicolin Dedecker v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc, et al., No. CV

11-0041-PHX-FJM (doc. 1486) and defendants’ reply (doc. 1501). Plaintiffs have not

responded, and the time to do so has passed.

Defendants served all personal injury plaintiffs with a plaintiff fact sheet (“PFS”) and

discovery on whether plaintiffs “sniffed” the Zicam product. Case Management Order 2

requires every personal injury plaintiff to complete the PFS, and return it within forty-five

days of receipt (doc. 398). If a plaintiff fails to serve a completed PFS, defendants’ lead

counsel must send a warning letter to plaintiff’s counsel requesting compliance within fifteen

days. If plaintiff does not then respond, defendants may move for appropriate relief.

Plaintiffs Henry and Dedecker have not provided responses to any discovery served by

Case 2:11-cv-00041-FJM Document 9 Filed 08/05/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

defendants. Defendants have sent two letters to plaintiffs advising them of the deficiencies.

We previously granted plaintiffs’ counsel’s motions to withdraw based on plaintiffs’ failure

to respond to counsel’s repeated attempts to elicit discovery responses. Order of March 25,

2011 (doc. 1396); Order of April 28, 2011 (doc. 1441).

We may dismiss an action where a party fails to obey a court order on discovery. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litig., 460

F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). As an MDL court, our discretion to dismiss is broadened

by our responsibility to “promote the just and efficient conduct of actions that are

coordinated or consolidated for pretrial purposes.” In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at

1252. In addition, plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this motion is grounds for dismissal.

LRCiv 7.2(i) (if “counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such

non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the

Court may dispose of the motion summarily.”). 

Therefore, in accordance with plaintiffs’ ongoing refusal to participate and with their

decision not to oppose defendants’ motion, we dismiss plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. And

while thorough analysis of the five-factor test for dismissal for failure to comply with

discovery is impossible without plaintiffs’ responses to defendants’ motion, a brief analysis

makes plain that dismissal is appropriate. See In re Phenylpropanolamine, 460 F.3d at 1226

(listing five factors to be considered prior to dismissal). First, “the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation” favors dismissal. Plaintiffs have ignored repeated

opportunities to comply with court orders, and have shown no interest in prosecuting their

claims. Second, our need to manage our docket supports dismissal. We have made clear that

the timely cooperation of all parties is vital to the management of such complex litigation.

Third, defendants have been prejudiced by plaintiffs’ delays in providing the requested

discovery responses. Defendants lack basic information about plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

Fourth, while public policy favors disposition of these claims on their merits, plaintiffs’

refusal to participate renders such a resolution impossible. Finally, a less drastic sanction

would not be effective. Plaintiffs have ignored repeated warnings that their failure to

Case 2:11-cv-00041-FJM Document 9 Filed 08/05/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

cooperate could lead to dismissal of their claims (including from their own lawyers), and

there is no reason to believe an additional warning would lead to a different result.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to dismiss the

claims of plaintiffs Carla Henry and Nicolin Dedecker (doc. 1486). IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED DISMISSING Carla Henry v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., No. CV 10-2082-

PHX-FJM, and Nicolin Dedecker v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc, et al., No. CV 11-0041-PHXFJM with prejudice.

DATED this 5th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00041-FJM Document 9 Filed 08/05/11 Page 3 of 3