Case Name: Segriel WRIGHT, Appellant, v. ORGANON USA, INC.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Organon International, Inc.; Akzo Nobel NV; Schering-Plough Corporation; Merck & Company, Inc., Appellees; Daisy Gonzalez, Appellant, v. Organon USA, Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Organon International, Inc.; Akzo Nobel NV; Schering-Plough Corporation; Merck & Company, Inc., Appellees; Tammy Street, Appellant, v. Organon USA, Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Organon International, Inc.; Akzo Nobel NV; Schering-Plough Corporation; Merck & Company, Inc., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-20
Citations: 482 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: Nos. 11-3680, 11-3681, 11-3682
Parties: Segriel WRIGHT, Appellant, v. ORGANON USA, INC.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Organon International, Inc.; Akzo Nobel NV; Schering-Plough Corporation; Merck & Company, Inc., Appellees. Daisy Gonzalez, Appellant, v. Organon USA, Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Organon International, Inc.; Akzo Nobel NV; Schering-Plough Corporation; Merck & Company, Inc., Appellees. Tammy Street, Appellant, v. Organon USA, Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Organon International, Inc.; Akzo Nobel NV; Schering-Plough Corporation; Merck & Company, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 482
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Segriel WRIGHT, Appellant, v. ORGANON USA, INC.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Organon International, Inc.; Akzo Nobel NV; Schering-Plough Corporation; Merck & Company, Inc., Appellees. Daisy Gonzalez, Appellant, v. Organon USA, Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Organon International, Inc.; Akzo Nobel NV; Schering-Plough Corporation; Merck & Company, Inc., Appellees. Tammy Street, Appellant, v. Organon USA, Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Organon International, Inc.; Akzo Nobel NV; Schering-Plough Corporation; Merck & Company, Inc., Appellees.
Nos. 11-3680, 11-3681, 11-3682.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 16, 2012.
Filed: July 20, 2012.
Lance Brown, Brown & Depinto, Rob-binsville, NJ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Raymond A. Cardozo, Reed & Smith, San Francisco, CA, Melissa Anne Geist, Reed & Smith, Princeton, NJ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these three consolidated appeals in multidistrict product-liability litigation, Segriel Wright, Daisy Gonzales, and Tammy Street challenge the district court's dismissals of their complaints, and denials of their motions to reinstate their complaints.
To begin, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's orders dismissing appellants' complaints. See Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (notice of appeal must designate judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed); USCOC of Greater Mo. v. City of Ferguson, 583 F.3d 1035, 1040 & n. 4 (8th Cir.2009) (Rule 3(c) is more than mere technicality, and failure to comply with it may create jurisdictional bar to appeal; court construes notices of appeal liberally, but only has jurisdiction when appellant's intent to challenge particular order or judgment is apparent either on notice of appeal or on properly filed appeal information form, and when adverse party will suffer no prejudice if review is permitted).
As to the court's denials of appellants' motions to reinstate their complaints — motions that appellants describe as having been filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) — we find no abuse of discretion. See Sutherland v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 710 F.2d 473, 474-77 (8th Cir.1983) (standard of review; Rule 60(b) has never been vehicle for relief because of attorney's incompetence or carelessness); see also In re: Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 867 (8th Cir.2007) (Congress enacted multidistrict litigation (MDL) protocols to encourage efficiency; MDL courts must be able to establish schedules with firm cutoff dates if coordinated cases are to move diligently toward resolution; MDL courts must be given greater discretion to organize, coordinate, and adjudicate their proceedings, including dismissals of cases for failure to comply with orders).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.