Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-29/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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:

All Economic Injury Actions.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it “Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Efficacy Claims”

(doc. 998) and “Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Certification and Final Approval of an

Injunctive Relief Only Settlement Class Limited to the Intra-Nasal Products” (doc. 999). We

also have “Plaintiffs’ Response to the Court’s November 2, 2010 Order” (doc. 1119) and

“Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum in Response to the Court’s November 2, 2010

Order” (doc. 1120). 

We now set a status conference and hearing on the motions to dismiss the economic

injury efficacy claims and on the proposed class certification and settlement. The hearing

is set for January 13, 2011 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. The parties should be prepared to

discuss, among other things, the following issues. 

First, is class treatment necessary? Would the parties be amenable to settling

plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claims without certifying a class? 

Second, if we do certify a class and preliminarily approve the settlement agreement,

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1216 Filed 12/06/10 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 -

how do the parties plan to provide the required notice to class members? Compare Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A), with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) (“The court must direct notice in a

reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.”). The parties

should explain both the form and substance of the proposed notice. 

Third, if we approve the proposed settlement, what is the status of plaintiffs’ safetybased claims for damages? Plaintiffs state that they are not included in the settlement

because: (1) “the ability to recover any safety-related damages is remote”; (2) any potential

recovery is “outweighed by the risk, expense and complexity of continued litigation”; and

(3) defendants lack the resources “to satisfy a substantial monetary judgment or settlement.”

Plaintiffs’ Response at 4. They further assert that they limited their settlement to injunctive

relief claims to avoid the cost of class notice. Plaintiffs’ Response at 5. Defendants maintain

that there “are no viable ‘no injury’ claims for monetary relief relating to the safety of these

products.” Defendants’ Response at 5. This may all be true, but plaintiffs assert claims for

damages. See Consolidated Complaint at 39 (doc 187). Do plaintiffs now agree to dismiss

these claims with prejudice? 

IT IS ORDERED setting a status conference and hearing for January 13, 2011 at

2:00 p.m. Out of District counsel are welcome to appear by telephone. 

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1216 Filed 12/06/10 Page 2 of 2