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

ORDER

Page - 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

IN RE: PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE

(PPA) PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION,

______________________________

This document relates to:

Norma LaFrance v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 2-cv-1743.

MDL NO. 1407

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

 FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff moves the court to reconsider its May 31, 2005

Order Granting Elan Pharmaceuticals’ Motion for Summary Judgment

and Denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike, for Leave to File

Second Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages, and to

Substitute Proper Party Defendant (the “May 2005 Order”). Having

reviewed the motion, and, being fully advised, the court finds

and concludes as follows:

Local Rule 7(h) provides: 

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court

will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a

showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a

showing of new facts or legal authority which could not

have been brought to its attention earlier with

reasonable diligence.

Plaintiff has not shown either manifest error or new facts or

Case 2:02-cv-01743-BJR Document 39 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER

Page - 2 -

legal authority that could not with reasonable diligence have

been brought to the court’s attention earlier.

In the present motion, plaintiff argues, for the first time,

that on November 6, 2000 she was not put on notice of her

potential claim because the PPA-containing product she allegedly

ingested prior to her injury was a prescription product. This

argument does not raise new facts or legal authority. Nor is it

accurate. The November 6, 2000 FDA report specifically referenced

both over-the-counter and prescription products.

Plaintiff further argues that the court’s failure to

consider her Motions to Strike and to Substitute Proper Party

Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule 25 constitutes manifest error.

Plaintiff conceded the Rule 25 motion (thereby also rendering the

Motion to Strike moot), but even if the plaintiff had not, it is

harmless error because it would not change the outcome of the May

2005 Order. Rule 25(c) specifically applies only to transfers

that occur during the pendency of litigation. Hilbrands et al. v.

Far East Trading Co., Inc., 509 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir. 1975)(“[r]ule

17(a) would control if an interest was transferred prior to the

commencement of the suit. Rule 25(c)F.R.Civ.P. applies if the

transfer occurs during the pendency of the litigation.”) The

Purchase and Sale Agreement between Procter & Gamble

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Dura Pharmaceuticals closed on July 1,

1996. Plaintiff filed her action in November 2001, well after the

transfer of interest was completed. Thus, Rule 25(c) is

Case 2:02-cv-01743-BJR Document 39 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

Page - 3 -

inapplicable to this matter.

For the above reason, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration. 

 DATED at Seattle, Washington this 5th

A

 day of July, 2005.

BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-01743-BJR Document 39 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 3