NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No s . 12

- 3822, 12

- 3823, 12

- 3824 and 12

- 3825

____________ I N RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)

Harold W. Landes, Jr., Appellant, N o. 12

- 3822 George L. Conner, Appellant, No. 12

- 3823 Walter J. Specht, Jr., Appellant, No. 12

- 3824 Thomas Streber, Appellant, No. 12

- 3825

____________ On Appeal from the MDL 875 in the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani a (D.C. Nos. 2

- 08

- cv - 88402 , 2

- 09

- cv - 061817 , 2

- 10

- cv - 067838 and 2

- 11

- cv - 64241 ) District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 16, 2013 Before: FISHER, VANASKIE and SHWARTZ , Circuit Jud ges . (Filed: October 17, 2013 )

____________ OPINION OF THE COURT

____________2

FISHER, Circuit Judge

. Harold Landes, George Conner, Walter J. Specht, and Thomas Streber (collectively “Plaintiffs”) appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania‟s dismissal of their cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with Administrative Order No. 12 (“AO 12”). For the reasons stated below, we will affirm.
I.
W e write principally for the parties, who are fam iliar with the factual context and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we will set forth only those facts that are necessary to our analysi s. Plaintiffs‟ cases were consolidated with various other cases into Multidistrict Litigation 875 (“MDL 875” ), a consolidated docket for asbestos products liability claims located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In order to “facilitate the expeditious movement of pending cases on the MDL docket,” the District Court issued AO 12 in May 2007. App. 6. A O 12 required an MDL 875 plaintiff to disclose medical diagnoses supporting his or her claims by submitting copies of the medical diagnosing report or the opinion upon which the plaintiff‟s asbestos

- related claim relied. App. 7. AO 12 further required th at a plaintiff‟s submissions be based upon objective and subjective data, identified and descriptively set out within the report or opinion. App. 15. If a plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements set forth in AO 12, the Court could dismiss the3

ca se pursuant to Rule 41(b). 1 In August 2009, the District Court amended AO 12 to require a plaintiff to submit, among other things, medical reports “upon which the plaintiff now relies for the prosecution of the claims as if to withstand a dispositive moti on.” App. 15. On November 14, 2011, the District Court dismissed a series of cases for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in AO 12. Specifically, the Court dismissed all

cases involving plaintiffs who failed to submit, among other things, sufficient exposure histories. App. 15. Although the plain language of AO 12 did not specifically require a plaintiff to provide a complete exposure history, the District Court based its dismissal on: [T]he language in AO 12 that emphasizes that plaintif fs should submit medical diagnosis [ sic ] or opinions base d on medically accepted princip l e s and practices, and based on st atements from reputable medical organizations that require occupation al and environmental exposure history when screening for asbestos

- related diseases . . . App. 35. The District Court interpreted AO 12 to require that submissions comply with “generally accepted medical standards [that] call for information regarding „duration, intensity, time of onset, and setting‟ of exposure to asb estos.” App. 33. Plaintiffs in the instant proceeding served AO 12 disclosures on Defendants in December 2007 (Landes), September 2007 (Conner), October 2007 (Specht), and April 2011 (Streber); each contained a diagnosing medical report. In response, Def endants

1 Rule 41(b) provides: “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action o r any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).4

filed motions to dismiss on the basis that each of Plaintiffs‟ AO 12 submissions failed to comply with the November 2011 order because they did not contain a sufficient history of exposure to asbestos. App. 288

- 89, 507

- 09, 609

- 10, 649

- 51. Plainti ffs filed responses in opposition to Defendants‟ motions, arguing that their submissions were sufficient and that the District Court‟s interpretation of AO 12 was incorrect. App. 652. On July 23, 2012, the District Court adopted its November 2011 interpr etation of AO 12 and granted the Defendants‟ motions, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs‟ cases for failure to provide a sufficient AO 12 report with respect to exposure history. App. 53

- 60. On August 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed individual motions to rec onsider the District Court‟s order dismissing their cases with prejudice. The District Court denied reconsideration. Plaintiffs‟ timely notice of appeal to this Court followed.
II. The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, which authori zes the transfer to a single district court of cases presenting common issues of fact. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review a district court‟s interpretation of its own orders with deference, particularly in the MDL context.” In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI) , 718 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Gibbs v. Frank , 500 F.3d 202, 206 (3d Cir. 2007)). We review a district court‟s decision to dismiss a complaint under Rule 41(b) for an abuse of
discretion. Emerson v. Thiel Coll. , 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002).5 III. Plaintiffs advance several arguments on appeal: (1) that the District Court erred in interpreting AO 12; (2) that the District Court erred in retroactively applying its novel interpretation of AO 12 to dismiss Plaintiffs‟ cases with prejudice for not complying with AO 12; and (3) that the District Court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs‟ cases without providing individualized analyses of the claims and the mandatory findings necessary to justify dismissal w ith prejudice. Each of these arguments fails.
A. Plaintiffs first argue that the District Court‟s interpretation of AO 12 as requiring a complete exposure history is incorrect. The proper interpretation, according to Plaintiffs, is that AO 12 only requir es a diagnosis of an asbestos

- related disease in a medical report that is supported by identified objective and subjective data. Plaintiffs contend that since their submissions satisfied the plain language of AO 12, they were sufficient. We disagree.

“ [ W ] e normally give great deference to a court‟s interpretation of its own
orders

. . . .” See DirecTV, Inc. v. Leto , 467 F.3d 842, 844 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Asbestos (No. VI) , 718 F.3d at 244 (citing United States v. Davis , 261 F.3d 1, 58

- 59 (1st Cir. 20 01) (“We defer to [the district court‟s interpretation of its own case management order] because the district court was uniquely positioned to explain the meaning of its own pretrial order.”)).6

Here, the District Court set forth the requirements of AO 12 i n its November 2011 order. The language of AO 12 , requiring plaintiffs to submit medical diagnoses or opinions based on objective and subjective data, and statements from reputable medical organizations emphasizing the importance of exposure history in sc reenings for asbestos

related diseases, informed the District Court‟s interpretation. While the broad language of AO 12 could support other interpretations, we find no reason not to defer to the District Court‟s interpretation of its own order requiring p laintiffs to submit asbestos exposure history. See Asbestos (No. VI) , 718 F.3d at 244. For the same reasons, we also find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the asbestos exposure history requirement.
B. Plaintiffs also argue that the District Court erred in retroactively applying its novel interpretation of AO 12 to dismiss their cases with prejudice. They contend that their cases should have bee n dismissed without prejudice. In determining whether a district court abused it s discretion in dismissing a case pursuant to Rule 41(b), we review the manner in which it balanced the six factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company , 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). Asbestos (No. VI) , 718 F.3d at 246. These six fa ctors include: (1) the extent of the party‟s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the at torney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness alternative7

sanctions other than dismissal; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense

. Id. ( citing Poulis , 747 F.2d at 868 ) . “„No single Poulis factor is dispositive‟” and “„not
all of t he Poulis factors need be satisfied in order to dismiss a complaint.‟” Id. (citing Briscoe v. Klaus , 538 F.3d 252, 263 (3d Cir. 2008)). While engaging in this analysis, we bear in mind that district judges “must have authority to manage their dockets, es pecially during [a] massive litigation.” Id. (quoting In re Fannie Mae Sec. Litig. , 552 F.3d 814, 822 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Due to the inherent difficulties in administering cases in multidistrict litigation, “district courts must have wide discretion to ma nage „complex issues and potential burdens on defendants and the court‟

– namely . . . through managing discovery.” Id. (quoting Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc. , 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000)). We conclude that the District Court properly considered the Po ulis factors and, accordingly, did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiffs‟ case s with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). “ [ O ] ur ability to satisfy ourselves that the district court did not act arbitrarily, and did consider the relevant factors, is made easier when the dismissal resulted from the defendant‟s motion and was challenged by the plaintiff before the district court ruled.” Id. at 248. Here, the District Court considered the Poulis factors in its November 2011 order, and the Plaintiffs addressed them in their briefs in opposition to Defendants‟ motions to dismiss. While the District Court did not explicitly weigh all of
the factors in its July 2012 order, it reiterated the case management needs of asbestos8

multidistrict litigation and the objectives of AO 12, including the need “to avoid unnecessary burdens on defendants.” App. 54 n.2. Specifically, the Court stated: “Without evidence of an exposure history for each plaintiff and a medical diagnosis that allows defendants and the Cou rt to sort through, for example, which plaintiffs allegedly were exposed to whose asbestos at which locations, the litigation of thousands of cases could not go forward.” App. 53

- 54 n.2. By not presenting the exposure history necessary to withstand a mot ion to dismiss, Plaintiffs delayed the progress of their cases and unduly burdened the Defendants.
C. Plaintiffs‟ final argument challenges the District Court‟s failure to provide Plaintiffs with individualized analyses of their claims and the mandatory fi ndings necessary to justify dismissal with prejudice

. This argument fails because, as previously stated, the District Court properly considered the Poulis factors in its November 2011 order, the parties addressed them in their briefs, and the Court incorp orated those factors into its dismissal of the Plaintiffs‟ claims in July 2012. Because Plaintiffs failed to provide the submissions necessary to withstand a dispositive motion , the Court was left with little to assess in terms of individualized analysis. Plaintiffs ‟ argument also fails because they were put on notice in November 2011 of the District Court‟s view on the diagnostic information required for their cases. See Asbestos (VI) , 718 F.3d at 248. Rather than correcting their submissions to comply with9

AO 12, which they had ample opportunity to do, Plaintiffs chose to argue that the District Court‟s interpretation was flawed and that their submissions were sufficient. The consequences of taking this route were clear given the District Court‟s previ ous dismissals in November 2011. See id

. (“ Plaintiffs chose the strategy of arguing to the contrary, in seeming denial, while the consequences of doing so . . . were quite clear, and admittedly drastic.” )

. Because the District Court adequately weighed the parties‟ arguments in
accordance with Poulis , and Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to cure any potential defects, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiffs‟ cases pursuant to Rule 41(b).
IV. For the reasons set forth ab ove, we will affirm the District Court‟s dismissal with prejudice of the claims in the instant appeal.