Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-md-01699/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-md-01699-900/pdf.json

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

---

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: BEXTRA AND CELEBREX

MARKETING SALES PRACTICES AND

PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION,

 /

This document relates to:

Betty Zito, et al., 06-2619 CRB

Pauline Jackson, et al., 06-2691 CRB

___________________________________/

CASE NO. 05-1699 CRB

MDL No. 1699 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO VACATE

JUDGMENT

On October 27, 2006, the Court entered an order granting defendants’ motions to

dismiss the above cases because of plaintiffs’ undisputed failure to comply with Pretrial

Order No. 6. Now pending before the Court is the motion of all of the plaintiffs in the above

cases to vacate the Court’s October 27, 2006 dismissal of their claims with prejudice. 

Plaintiffs contend that the dismissals should be vacated due to “excusable neglect.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

Plaintiffs explain that although their actions were filed shortly after Hurricane Katrina,

the disruption caused by the hurricane to plaintiffs’ counsel’s now-defunct New Orleans

practice caused counsel’s Cleveland office not to learn that plaintiffs’ claims against Pfizer

had been severed from their claims against Merck; therefore counsel were not aware of the

requirements of PTO 6. The lawyers handling the matters from the temporary New Orleans

office all left the law firm in 2005 and early 2006.

Case 3:05-md-01699-CRB Document 1999 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2005\1699\ordersmisc\orderreZito.wpd 2

Plaintiffs’ motion is continued to give plaintiffs the opportunity to file a motion that is

supported by a declaration and explains their delay in bringing their Rule 60(b) motion.

First, plaintiffs offer no evidence in support of their explanation for their failure to

comply with PTO 6. Statements in a brief are not a substitute for statements made in a

declaration under oath.

Second, the docket reflects that plaintiffs’ counsel’s Cleveland office was aware that

these cases had been transferred to the Celebrex/Pfizer MDL on October 27, 2006 at the

latest. On that date, plaintiffs’ counsel filed oppositions to Pfizer’s motions to dismiss

plaintiffs’ claims. See 06-2619 CRB Docket no.10; 06-2691 CRB Docket no. 12. The

oppositions, however, were filed after the Court had already ruled on Pfizer’s motions. As

the rulings were filed electronically, and as plaintiffs’ counsel from the Cleveland office had

registered on ECF as required (and had filed the oppositions electronically), plaintiffs’

counsel was aware of the Court’s ruling in October 2006. No where in plaintiffs’ motion do

they explain why they delayed nearly 11 months to file the motions to vacate the dismissals. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (the motion for relief from judgment shall be made “within a

reasonable time”). Nor do they explain when and how the Cleveland office learned of these

actions and why they did not file a timely opposition to Pfizer’s motions to dismiss.

In sum, plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion is wholly inadequate. If plaintiffs wish to

supplement the motion with admissible evidence they shall do so on or before November 9,

2007. If they do not supplement by that date, the Court will deny their motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-md-01699-CRB Document 1999 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2