Patricia Freeman v. Wyeth
764 F.3d 806
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Freeman sued Wyeth in NY state court for Prempro-linked breast cancer; case removed and MDL transfer designated; clerk’s transfer memo instructed CM-ECF registration for electronic filings; Judge Wilson’s 2005 order required CM-ECF registration; Freeman’s docket showed no activity until discovery designation in 2012; 2013 dismissal for failure to provide medical authorizations; Freeman’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate denied; attorney registered for CM-ECF only on 10/22/2013 after filing the motion; on appeal, standard is abuse of discretion for Rule 60(b) motions; MDL administration emphasizes heightened discretion to enforce deadlines; Court affirms the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion was properly denied | Freeman's attorney monitored case; excusable neglect | Counsel failed to register for CM-ECF; dismissal appropriate | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether attorney’s CM-ECF failure constitutes excusable neglect | Acknowledges monitoring, argues excusable neglect | Failure to register caused notices to be missed | Not excusable; factors favor district court |
| MDL management warrants dismissal for noncompliance | MDL order not satisfied; procedural issues | MDL needs strict enforcement to prevent delays | Affirmed; MDL discretion supports dismissal |
| Did lack of timely notices affect outcome | Not receiving notices harmed prosecution | MDL orders targeted all cases; notices not necessary for outcome | Outcome upheld; lack of notices did not cure noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2007) (greater MDL discretion to manage proceedings; dismissals permissible)
- Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (Supreme Court 1993) (excusable neglect factors; equitable inquiry)
- Int'l Bd. of Elec. Workers v. Hope Elec. Corp., 293 F.3d 409 (8th Cir. 2002) (refuses extraordinary relief in ordinary cases)
