In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI)
718 F.3d 236
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- MDL 875 centralized asbestos-related cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Judge Robreno oversees discovery and pretrial procedures.
- AO 12 required medical diagnosing reports/opinions and complete exposure history for asbestos-related claims; it allowed dismissal under Rule 41(b) for noncompliance.
- November 2011 Order dismissed 47 CVLO cases for noncompliance with AO 12, focusing on exposure history and/or asbestos-related disease.
- March 2012 Order reaffirmed AO 12 requirements, dismissing cases for insufficient exposure history or lack of symptomatic asbestos-related disease.
- Twelve named plaintiffs appeal, arguing AO 12 did not require complete exposure history and that dismissal with prejudice was improper under Poulis factors.
- District Court ultimately dismissed the twelve cases with prejudice; Third Circuit affirms, emphasizing MDL case-management discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AO 12 requires a complete exposure history | AO 12 does not mandate complete history, only general exposure information | AO 12 requires complete exposure history to meet medical standards | AO 12 requires complete exposure history |
| Whether AO 12 submissions must show an asbestos-related disease | Plaintiffs argue some submissions show disease | Submissions must reflect a symptomatic asbestos-related disease | Submissions must show symptomatic asbestos-related disease |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper under Poulis in MDL context | Poulis factors weighed against prejudice and merit | District court properly weighed Poulis; egregious dilatoriness and prejudice warranted dismissal | Dismissal with prejudice affirmed; Poulis factors considered and weighed appropriately |
Key Cases Cited
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (six-factor balancing framework for Dismissal under Rule 41(b))
- Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (Supreme Court 1962) (causation and exposure linkage relevance in pleading)
- Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2008) (no single Poulis factor controls; district court discretion)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) (MDL context requires broad district court discretion in case management)
- Fannie Mae Sec. Litig., 552 F.3d 814 (3d Cir. 2009) (deference to district court orders and MDL management)
- Avila v. Willits Evtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2011) (contextual discussion of selective enforcement in complex litigation)