Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-17/pdf.json

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

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

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:

Collins, Debra v. Matrixx

Initiatives, Inc., et al.

CV 10-0941-PHX-FJM

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff Debra Collins’s motion for leave to amend her

complaint (doc. 836), defendants’ response (doc. 891), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 913).

Plaintiff moves to relate the amendments back to the date of the filing of the original

complaint, and to add as defendants packager Botanical Laboratories, Inc., and retailers

Safeway, Inc. and the Kroger Co. 

Our Rule 16 Scheduling Order set a deadline of April 15, 2010 for motions to amend

or join additional parties, including retailers (doc. 183). Collins’s conditional transfer order

was entered on April 28, 2010 (doc. 11), and her case was transferred on April 29, 2010 (doc.

14). While it would be unfair to hold plaintiff to a deadline that passed before her case was

docketed here, we do require plaintiff to show good cause for modifying the scheduling order

to permit the filing of her motion on September 9, 2010. Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(3). See also

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 605 (9th Cir. 1992). We may modify

the order only “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 961 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

extension.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.

2002). When the party seeking modification is not diligent, “the inquiry should end and the

motion to modify should not be granted.” Id.

As of April 29, 2010, the date plaintiff’s complaint was consolidated with this MDL,

plaintiff should have been aware of the deadlines in our Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Yet, she

waited until September 9, 2010, to file this motion, almost five months after her case was

transferred. She explains only that her motion is based on “legal determinations made by

plaintiff’s counsel since these cases have been filed,” and that she “had been making a

diligent effort in obtaining the names of every retailer where she purchased Zicam.” Motion

to Amend, 2, 4. 

Because this is not sufficient, we conclude that plaintiff has not shown that she acted

diligently to comply with the order. First, plaintiff offers no explanation as to why she

waited nearly five months to name Botanical as a defendant. Second, plaintiff does not

explain why her “diligent effort” to figure out where she purchased Zicam took so long. We

agree with plaintiff that requiring strict adherence to a deadline that did not apply to her at

the time it passed would be unduly prejudicial. However, parties who have joined this MDL

after relevant deadlines have passed still must make all reasonable efforts to comply with our

orders as quickly as possible. By waiting nearly five months to file her motion to amend, we

conclude plaintiff has not made such an effort

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint (doc. 836).

DATED this 7th day of October, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 961 Filed 10/12/10 Page 2 of 2