Opinion ID: 150891
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dier Plaintiffs’ Dismissal

Text: The Dier plaintiffs brought their Vioxx suits against Merck in state and federal courts in New York. Each case was then transferred to the MDL. The Dier plaintiffs have not opted into the MSA. Shortly after the MSA was announced and the pre-trial orders were entered, a group of plaintiffs (the Oldfather plaintiffs) filed a motion in the district court requesting modification or suspension of PTO 28 on the basis that its requirements were premature and unfairly burdensome. The district court rejected the Oldfather plaintiffs’ arguments, but nonetheless extended the deadlines for PTO 28 “to ensure that all Plaintiffs have a fair opportunity to comply with this provision of PTO 28.” In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 557 F. Supp. 2d 741, 745 (E.D. La. 2008). One month after the Oldfather ruling, in June 2008, another group of plaintiffs (the Agard plaintiffs)3 filed a motion making substantially the same arguments as the Oldfather plaintiffs in opposition to PTO 28. They requested another extension and sought to eliminate the expert report requirement of PTO 28. The Agard plaintiffs also argued that Judge Fallon’s roles as MSA chief administrator and as coordinating judge of the MDL proceeding created an incurable conflict of interest, requiring Judge Fallon to resign as MSA administrator. They further asserted that the MSA should be vacated or declared void because it had not been subject to the requirements of Rule 23. In December 2008, the district court denied the Agard motion in its entirety. In October 2008, the district court entered an order (the Conference Order) instructing eligible but non-settling plaintiffs to appear at one of three conferences to be held in different locations nationally. The stated purpose of the order was “to ensure that plaintiffs who are eligible for the Vioxx settlement 3 The Agard plaintiffs were also represented by the Law Office of Ronald R. Benjamin, counsel for the Dier plaintiffs. The Agard plaintiffs included some of the Dier plaintiffs. 4 Case: 09-30446 Document: 00511176837 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/16/2010 No. 09-30446 program but who have not enrolled in the program . . . have all necessary information available to them so that they can make informed choices.” The order directed counsel and plaintiffs themselves to appear in person at one of the conferences, although it expressly allowed plaintiffs to avoid this requirement for reasons of “physical or economic hardship.” Many of the Dier plaintiffs claimed hardship and were excused from attendance. The Dier plaintiffs also moved the district court to vacate the order, contending that the only conceivable purpose of the conferences was for the court to engage in “advocacy for the settlement in an environment that is necessarily going to be viewed as coercive by the individual plaintiffs.” The district court denied the motion. In November 2008, Merck moved for an Order to Show Cause as to sixty-one plaintiffs (including the Dier plaintiffs) for “failure to provide a case-specific expert report as required by . . . PTO 28.” In December 2008, the district court issued an Order to Show Cause. The Dier plaintiffs filed responses, arguing that they were in substantial compliance with PTO 28 and that New York law only required general causation proof. In April 2009, the district court dismissed the Dier plaintiffs’ complaints with prejudice for failure to comply with PTO 28.