WOOTEN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, 2:19-cv-02586-CCC-LDW

Background

CMO No. 60 (Nov. 19, 2021) directed plaintiffs in identified PPI MDL cases to (1) file proof of service on Pfizer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), (2) voluntarily dismiss Pfizer, or (3) show cause why Pfizer should not be dismissed. Deadlines were later extended by agreement, but CMO did not itself extend the Rule 4(m) service period.
The Court addressed 640 plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A who failed to satisfy CMO No. 60: 61 never served Pfizer; 579 served Pfizer only after CMO No. 60—often years late (41 cases 1–2 years late; 80 cases 2–3 years late; 458 cases >3 years late).
Plaintiffs largely filed boilerplate responses that did not explain why service under Rule 4(m) was untimely or document efforts to effect timely service; many relied on arguments about tolling, waiver, or discretionary relief.
Pfizer did not agree to accept service or waivers by e-mail and preserved service defenses under existing case-management orders (notably CMO No. 7).
The Court found plaintiffs failed to show good cause under Rule 4(m), declined to exercise its discretion to extend service, rejected plaintiffs’ waiver arguments, and ordered Pfizer dismissed without prejudice from the Exhibit A cases.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs showed "good cause" under Rule 4(m) to extend time to serve Pfizer	Plaintiffs mostly did not provide reasons; some pointed to MDL complexities and tolling	Pfizer: no timely service, plaintiffs provided no reasonable basis or documented efforts; prejudice resulted	No good cause shown; factor analysis (efforts, prejudice, failure to seek earlier extension) favors dismissal
Whether court should exercise discretion to extend service despite no good cause	Plaintiffs urged discretionary extension based on tolling agreement, potential SOL lapse, and MDL context	Pfizer: lacked actual notice, was prejudiced, plaintiffs were represented by counsel, and no defendant misconduct impeded service	Court declined discretionary extension after weighing notice, prejudice, SOL, defendant conduct, and counsel representation
Whether Pfizer waived the defense of insufficient service by prior filings or MDL participation	Plaintiffs contended Pfizer waived service defense by filing answers/appearances, motions, or by participating in MDL processes	Pfizer: CMO No. 7 preserved all defenses; Pfizer did not file answers/appearances in these cases or meaningfully litigate them	No waiver—Pfizer preserved service defense and did not meaningfully litigate the specific Exhibit A cases
Whether tolling agreement or other MDL communications constituted "actual notice" of individual suits	Plaintiffs argued tolling indicated Pfizer had notice of claims and justified extension	Pfizer: tolling spreadsheets did not identify defendant/product per claimant and did not provide actual legal notice of individual suits	Tolling insufficient to establish actual legal notice; plaintiffs failed to prove Pfizer had actual notice of the specific actions

Key Cases Cited

MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir. 1995) (defines good-cause standard and factors for Rule 4(m) relief)
Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298 (3d Cir. 1995) (court may dismiss or grant extension in absence of good cause; guides discretionary analysis)
McCurdy v. Am. Bd. of Plastic Surgery, 157 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 1998) (plaintiff bears burden to justify relief from Rule 4(m))
Chiang v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., [citation="331 Fed. App'x 113"] (3d Cir. 2009) (lists factors guiding court’s discretionary Rule 4(m) decisions)
King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2012) (explains when active litigation participation can lead to waiver of service defense)
Edwards v. Hillman, [citation="849 F. App'x 23"] (3d Cir. 2021) (affirms that absent good cause plaintiff must rely on court’s discretion under Petrucelli)