In Re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation MDL 2873
2:18-mn-02873
| D.S.C. | Aug 5, 2025Background
- This case is part of the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the District of South Carolina.
- Plaintiff’s claims were previously dismissed without prejudice for failure to submit a substantially complete Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS), as required by Case Management Orders (CMO) 5 and 5E.
- CMOs permit reinstatement of claims if a plaintiff submits a completed PFS within a specific period after dismissal.
- Plaintiff submitted a completed PFS after the Court’s dismissal order and filed a timely motion to reinstate the claims.
- The MDL process includes strict procedures to promote efficient case management and avoid prejudice and delay for all parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reinstatement of dismissed claims under MDL procedure | Plaintiff timely cured PFS deficiency and is eligible for reinstatement. | Plaintiff was deficient in submitting required PFS, warranting dismissal. | Motion to reinstate granted due to compliance with CMO 5. |
| Court authority to manage docket and enforce deadlines | MDL court retains discretion to manage cases and allow reinstatement if CMO conditions met. | Strict PFS compliance is necessary for case progress and to minimize prejudice. | Court exercises discretion in favor of reinstatement. |
| Prejudice to defendant and other plaintiffs from delayed PFS | Plaintiff’s late submission did not substantially prejudice defendants given prompt correction. | Deficient and delayed submissions can impede defense and delay other plaintiffs. | No substantial prejudice; timely correction allowed reinstatement. |
| Appropriate sanction for failure to comply with order | Reinstatement is warranted because plaintiff promptly complied after warning and dismissal. | Dismissal is proper for non-compliance to encourage efficiency. | Reinstatement is a less drastic, appropriate remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989) (sets out factors for dismissal for failure to comply with court order)
- In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prod Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2007) (MDL courts have broad discretion to manage dockets and impose deadlines)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) (purpose and importance of Plaintiff Fact Sheets in MDL proceedings)