Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-md-01606/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-md-01606-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE:

DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS

This Document Relates To:

05-1896 VRW

 /

MDL Docket No 04-1606 VRW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On May 6, 2005, Stephen J Purtill signed and filed a

complaint, purportedly on behalf of Stephen and Valerie Marsh, for

damages resulting from a deep vein thrombosis allegedly suffered by

Mr Marsh after taking a flight operated by defendant Delta Airlines

in May 2003. Mr Purtill practices with the O’Reilly & Danko law

firm; two other lawyers from that firm are counsel of record in

this case, Michael S Danko and Kristine K Meredith. 

According to a letter from Mr Marsh received by the court

on January 22, 2008, Mr and Mrs Marsh did not authorize the lawsuit

Case 3:04-md-01606-VRW Document 750 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

filed on their behalf and did not become aware of the lawsuit until

they received correspondence from the O’Reilly & Danko firm on

January 19, 2008. Doc #26 in No 05-1896. Mr Danko responded to

these allegations by letter on February 8, 2008. Doc #21. Mr

Danko told the court that Mr Marsh authorized the filing of a

lawsuit during initial discussions with Mr Danko in July 2003. 

From the evidence now before the court, this statement appears to

be incorrect. 

The last communication from the O’Reilly & Danko firm to

Mr Marsh before the filing of this lawsuit was a May 3, 2005 email

from a paralegal to Mr Marsh that stated “I need to get a signed

contract from you if you would like us to represent you in this

matter.” Doc #22, Exh B. Mr Marsh replied to this email with a

one-line response containing his mailing address. Doc #22, Exh B. 

Mr Danko argues that this reply must be construed as an indication

of Mr Marsh’s continued interest in the litigation. 

Even if Mr Danko is correct that this reply was an

indication of Mr Marsh’s continued interest in the litigation, it

appears that the law firm communicated to Mr Marsh that no lawsuit

would be filed on his behalf until receipt of a signed contract

from Mr Marsh. This, of course, would be consistent with

California Business & Professions Code, section 6147(a) that

provides when a contingent fee contract is entered into by a lawyer

and client, the client shall receive a copy of the contract “signed

by both the attorney and client.” O’Reilly & Danko never received

a signed contract; indeed, Mr Marsh never received the proposed

contract because the firm failed to update Mr Marsh’s address. 

Yet, according to a declaration submitted to the court by Mr

Case 3:04-md-01606-VRW Document 750 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Purtill, he and Mr Danko agreed that the absence of a signed

contract should not prevent them from filing the complaint. Doc

#23 at ¶4. Mr Purtill’s declaration states that he and Mr Danko

were concerned about a possible lapse of the statute of

limitations. Doc #23 at ¶4. However that may be, Messrs Purtill

and Danko and the O’Reilly & Danko law firm appear to have taken no

steps after May 3, 2005, to obtain Mr Marsh’s unambiguous assent to

filing an action on his and Mrs Marsh’s behalf or to execute a

contingent fee agreement.

On these facts, it appears that Mr Purtill was not

authorized to sign and file the complaint on behalf of Mr and Mrs

Marsh on May 6, 2005. By doing so anyway, it appears that Mr

Purtill may have violated FRCP 11(b). Even if the failure to have

an unambiguous assent from Mr Marsh or to have in hand a signed fee

agreement before filing the complaint could be excused on grounds

that Messrs Purtill and Danko and the O’Reilly & Danko law firm had

reason to fear a possible lapse of the limitations period, the

failure to follow up after filing the complaint is difficult to

understand. Hence, the court has concerns that Mr Danko and the

law firm itself, as well as Mr Purtill, were responsible for the

unauthorized filing of the complaint. If they were responsible for

the unauthorized filing, they, too, may be subject to sanctions. 

See FRCP 11(c)(1).

Accordingly, Stephen J Purtill, Michael S Danko and the

O’Reilly & Danko law firm are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why

sanctions should not be imposed against them for the improper

signing and filing of a complaint on behalf of Stephen and Valerie

Marsh in violation of FRCP 11. The writing is due on or before

Case 3:04-md-01606-VRW Document 750 Filed 02/19/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

March 11, 2008. A hearing on the order to show cause will be held

March 18, 2008 at 10 am. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-md-01606-VRW Document 750 Filed 02/19/08 Page 4 of 4