Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00376/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00376-1/pdf.json

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

---

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:

Pages-Rangel v. Zicam, LLC, et al., CV10-0376-PHX-FJM;

Quinones-Rodriguez, et al. v. Botanical

Laboratories, Inc., et al., 

CV-10-1174-PHX-FJM.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs Luis Quinones Rodriguez and Brunilda Diaz Lugo’s

motion to set aside dismissal with prejudice (Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 11), plaintiff

Fernando Pages-Rangel’s motion to set aside dismissal with prejudice (Case No. 10-CV0376, doc. 18), defendants’ responses (docs. 12, 19, respectively), and plaintiffs’ motions for

leave to file reply brief and proposed replies (docs. 14, 21, respectively). Plaintiffs are not

required to obtain leave to file a reply, therefore the motions for leave to file are denied as

moot (Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 14; Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 21). The clerk is

instructed to docket the lodged reply briefs. 

We designated lead plaintiffs’ counsel for the personal injury plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation. Among other responsibilities, Lead Counsel was authorized to “conduct

settlement negotiations on behalf of Plaintiffs.” (Case No. 09-md-2096, doc. 182). Lead

Case 2:10-cv-00376-FJM Document 22 Filed 10/20/11 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 -

Counsel ultimately executed a Settlement Agreement on behalf of the parties. Individual

plaintiffs who wished to participate in the settlement were required to “opt in” and allow their

claims to be resolved through the settlement program. Moving plaintiffs voluntarily joined

the master settlement, thus agreeing to participate in the claims allocation program. In

addition, the Settlement Agreement required each individual who joined the settlement to

execute a general release of claims before settlement funds could be distributed. Moving

plaintiffs each executed releases. On July 8, 2011, we dismissed with prejudice each of the

settled claims, noting that the “claims administration process that the parties have chosen is

not part of this MDL,” and that any challenges to the settlement process must therefore be

resolved by an independent action. (Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 16; Case No. 10-CV-1174,

doc. 8). Nevertheless, after final allocations were made under the settlement program,

plaintiffs filed these motions seeking to set aside the dismissals of their cases, arguing that

the settlement agreement is unenforceable because it is vague, unreasonable, unconscionable

and lacks essential terms. 

Final judgment was entered in each of the settled member cases. Plaintiffs’ belated

challenges to the settlement agreement do not revive their extinguished claims. Plaintiffs

have failed to establish any grounds for relief from final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

This MDL, as well as the settled member cases, are now closed. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file

a reply brief. (Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 21; Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 14; Case No. 09-

md-2096, doc. 1524).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motions to set aside the

dismissal. (Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 18; Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 11).

DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00376-FJM Document 22 Filed 10/20/11 Page 2 of 2