Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00159/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00159-1/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE BEXTRA AND CELEBREX

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND

PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION,

 /

This document relates to:

Paul Kahl 06-0159

Bennie Henderson 06-0159

Lula Eckols 06-0159

Melissa Griffin 06-0159

Maggie Mae Gross 06-0159

Jeffrey Dubose 06-0159

Lue Ella Jones 06-0159

Dorothy Clark 06-0159

Freddie Triplett 06-0159

Joe Lewis Brown 06-0159

E.Q. Eckford 06-0159

Dianne H. Baer 06-0159

Eone Virgil 06-0159

Antoinette Abram 06-0160

Sharon Johnson 06-0160

No. MDL 05-01699 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

Now pending for decision are the motions of the Gibson Law Firm to withdraw as

counsel for plaintiffs in the above actions. The Gibson Law Firm has not submitted a

declaration in support of its motion to withdraw. Instead, it states in its motion that in or

about November 1, 2005, counsel mailed a letter to all of the plaintiffs in the above actions

suggesting that they dismiss their claims with prejudice. 

Case 3:06-cv-00159-CRB Document 8 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\1699\showcauseorders\gibsonwithdraw.wpd 2

The letter also advised that if a party would not agree to dismiss, counsel would move to

withdraw and the party should seek new counsel. Some of the plaintiffs responded by

agreeing to dismissal. Some of the plaintiffs, namely plaintiffs Paul Kahl, Bennie

Henderson, Lula Eckols, Melissa Griffin, Maggie Mae Gross and Jeffrey Dubose advised

counsel that they wished to pursue their claims. And the letters to the other plaintiffs,

namely, Lue Ella Jones, Dorothy Clark, Freddie Triplett, Joe Lewis Brown, E.Q. Eckford,

Dianne H. Baer, Eone Virgil, Antoinette Abram and Sharon Johnson, were returned to

counsel “as the addressee refused, never accepted or never collected the certified letter.”

The motion to withdraw is DENIED as to the latter plaintiffs, those whose letters from

counsel were returned to counsel. The denial is without prejudice to counsel bringing a

renewed motion which documents, by declaration and exhibits, the efforts counsel has made

since November 2005 to locate their clients.

Counsel represents that the other group of plaintiffs, those who wish to proceed with

their cases, do not object to the withdrawal of the Gibson Law Firm; however, they seek a 60

day continuance to obtain new counsel. Counsel’s motion to withdraw then states that if new

counsel does not make an appearance within 60 days, the plaintiffs’ claims shall be

dismissed.

The Court is not prepared to grant counsel’s motion to withdraw at this time. First,

counsel must submit a declaration under oath that attests to the representations made in the

motion. The declaration should also specify whether these plaintiffs have complied with

PTO 6 regarding plaintiff fact sheets. Such declaration may be filed under seal to the extent

counsel wishes to include information not disclosed in the moving papers that counsel

believe should remain confidential. Second, counsel shall submit as an exhibit to the

declaration a copy of the letter sent to the plaintiffs. The letter may be filed under seal. The

declaration and exhibit shall be filed within 10 days of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00159-CRB Document 8 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\1699\showcauseorders\gibsonwithdraw.wpd 3

Case 3:06-cv-00159-CRB Document 8 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 3