We posted final yr about plaintiffs who have been dismissed from the Taxotere MDL for failure to serve defendants. To place it merely, the Federal Guidelines nonetheless apply in an MDL. 153 plaintiffs didn’t adjust to the Guidelines, and their instances have been dismissed. Not figuring out when to stroll away, as Kenny Rogers instructs, quite a few these plaintiffs filed for reconsideration. The MDL Courtroom rightly shut them down.
Plaintiffs filed their motions beneath Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). Rule 59(e) reduction is to “right a manifest error of legislation or truth” or to handle newly acquired proof or a change within the legislation, whereas 60(b) permits reduction from judgment if there may be “mistake, inadvertence, shock, or excusable neglect,” newly found proof, fraud, together with different causes, together with a catch-all for “extraordinary” circumstances. Plaintiffs couldn’t meet these requirements, and the Courtroom denied reconsideration. See In re: Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. MDL 16-2740, 2024 WL 1603571, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 12, 2024).
For probably the most half, plaintiffs’ arguments have been a rehashing of arguments already made. The Courtroom simply rejected these arguments, discovering no error of legislation in its conclusion that there was contumacious conduct in counsel ignoring their obligation to serve defendants. The Federal Rule requiring service needs to be sufficient, however right here the Courtroom additionally particularly warned plaintiffs at a listening to that they wanted to correctly serve defendants and issued a CMO extending the time for service. That was greater than sufficient to justify dismissal. The Courtroom additionally rejected the argument that plaintiffs ought to get a go as a result of defendants didn’t notify them of the deficiencies. This needs to be apparent, however it’s not defendants’ job to make sure plaintiffs adjust to the principles. Because the Courtroom put it, service is “an obligation of the plaintiff and the plaintiff solely.” Id. at *1. The Courtroom discovered help for its ruling in Fifth Circuit holdings that mistake of counsel will not be sufficient for Rule 59/Rule 60 reduction.
Together with the movement, the vast majority of the plaintiffs additionally submitted “newly found proof,” which was something however. Plaintiffs submitted affidavits of the unlucky paralegals and authorized assistants explaining how they screwed up service. In fact, there may be nothing “newly found” about this proof as a result of the information have been recognized earlier than the dismissals. And the Courtroom wasn’t persuaded by the proof given the extension of time already given. Plaintiffs additionally submitted proof that defendants had engaged within the litigation (and thus knew in regards to the instances) and had warned them about different deficiencies, however not this one. Nothing about this was “new” proof, and once more, because the Courtroom had already noticed, it’s the plaintiff’s job to make sure service, not defendants’.
Lastly, the Courtroom rejected plaintiffs’ Hail Mary “manifest injustice” argument. There wasn’t injustice of any variety given the lengthy delay and contumacious conduct, and definitely not the “extraordinary” manifest variety. It might be dangerous sufficient to tolerate non-compliance with the principles in a person case, however to take action in an MDL can be “disastrous.” Id. at *8.
Plaintiffs might imagine that they will use the MDL system to skirt the principles, however this opinion confirms that strict adherence to the principles is extra essential—not much less—within the MDL setting.
