Quinones-Rodriguez et al v. Zicam L.L.C. et al - Document 15
ORDER denying as moot plaintiffs' motions for leave to file a reply brief. (Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 21; Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 14 ; Case No. 09-md-2096, doc. 1524). FURTHER ORDERED denying plaintiffs' motions to set aside thedismissal. (Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 18; Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 11 ). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/20/11. (Original Order filed in MDL-2096, Doc. 1525) (MAP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
IN RE: Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,)
Sales Practices, and Products Liability)
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Pages-Rangel v. Zicam, LLC, et al., CV-)
Quinones-Rodriguez, et al. v. Botanical)
Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
The court has before it plaintiffs Luis Quinones Rodriguez and Brunilda Diaz Lugo’s
motion to set aside dismissal with prejudice (Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 11), plaintiff
Fernando Pages-Rangel’s motion to set aside dismissal with prejudice (Case No. 10-CV20
0376, doc. 18), defendants’ responses (docs. 12, 19, respectively), and plaintiffs’ motions for
leave to file reply brief and proposed replies (docs. 14, 21, respectively). Plaintiffs are not
required to obtain leave to file a reply, therefore the motions for leave to file are denied as
moot (Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 14; Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 21). The clerk is
instructed to docket the lodged reply briefs.
We designated lead plaintiffs’ counsel for the personal injury plaintiffs in this multi26
district litigation. Among other responsibilities, Lead Counsel was authorized to “conduct
settlement negotiations on behalf of Plaintiffs.” (Case No. 09-md-2096, doc. 182). Lead
Counsel ultimately executed a Settlement Agreement on behalf of the parties. Individual
plaintiffs who wished to participate in the settlement were required to “opt in” and allow their
claims to be resolved through the settlement program. Moving plaintiffs voluntarily joined
the master settlement, thus agreeing to participate in the claims allocation program. In
addition, the Settlement Agreement required each individual who joined the settlement to
execute a general release of claims before settlement funds could be distributed. Moving
plaintiffs each executed releases. On July 8, 2011, we dismissed with prejudice each of the
settled claims, noting that the “claims administration process that the parties have chosen is
not part of this MDL,” and that any challenges to the settlement process must therefore be
resolved by an independent action. (Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 16; Case No. 10-CV-1174,
doc. 8). Nevertheless, after final allocations were made under the settlement program,
plaintiffs filed these motions seeking to set aside the dismissals of their cases, arguing that
the settlement agreement is unenforceable because it is vague, unreasonable, unconscionable
and lacks essential terms.
Final judgment was entered in each of the settled member cases. Plaintiffs’ belated
challenges to the settlement agreement do not revive their extinguished claims. Plaintiffs
have failed to establish any grounds for relief from final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
This MDL, as well as the settled member cases, are now closed.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING as moot plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file
a reply brief. (Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 21; Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 14; Case No. 09-
md-2096, doc. 1524).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motions to set aside the
dismissal. (Case No. 10-CV-0376, doc. 18; Case No. 10-CV-1174, doc. 11).
DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.