In re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and Mechanical Ventilator Products Litigation

Summary

The court granted in part Philips’ motion to dismiss four cases in the Philips CPAP multidistrict litigation for failure to comply with docket management deadlines and to show good cause. The cases of Flores-Cruz, Burke, Young, and Chance were dismissed with prejudice, while the motion was held in abeyance as to Hamilton because Hamilton was participating in the personal injury settlement.

Holdings

1. When litigating plaintiffs fail to comply with the Docket Management Order and supplemental deadlines, fail to cure the deficiencies or show good cause after a show-cause order, and fail to respond to the motion to dismiss, their cases are subject to dismissal with prejudice under paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Docket Management Order.
2. The court would hold the motion to dismiss in abeyance as to Hamilton because counsel advised that Hamilton was participating in the personal-injury settlement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether personal-injury cases may be dismissed with prejudice when litigating plaintiffs fail to comply with Docket Management Order deadlines and fail to respond to show-cause orders.
2. Whether Flores-Cruz, Burke, Young, and Chance demonstrated good cause or otherwise cured their failures sufficiently to avoid dismissal.
3. Whether the motion to dismiss should be resolved as to Hamilton while he was participating in the personal-injury settlement.

Disposition

other