-DLB Smith et al. v. Pfizer Inc. et al., No. 1:2005cv01594 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/12/2011, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen (14) Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
-DLB Smith et al. v. Pfizer Inc. et al. Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ROSEMARY SMITH, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 10 11 Plaintiffs, 12 vs. 13 PFIZER, INC., et al., 14 15 1:05cv01594 AWI DLB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION ) ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) 16 Plaintiffs Rosemary Smith, Ricky E. Smith and Charles K. Smith are proceeding pro se in 17 this product liability action filed on December 16, 2005. On April 18, 2006, the action was 18 transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts pursuant to an order 19 of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. The action was transferred back to this Court on 20 May 24, 2011, after the completion of consolidated pretrial proceedings and discovery. The Court 21 set a Status Conference for June 20, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. 22 On June 20, 2011, Plaintiffs failed to appear for the Status Conference despite receiving 23 notice. Catherine Valerio Barrad appeared on behalf of Defendants. 24 On June 21, 2011, the Court issued an order to show cause why the action should not be 25 dismissed due to Plaintiffs’ failure to appear. 26 A hearing on the order to show cause was held before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 States Magistrate Judge on August 12, 2011. Plaintiffs Rosemary Smith, Ricky E. Smith and 2 Charles K. Smith personally appeared. Catherine Valerio Barrad appeared telephonically on behalf 3 of Defendants. 4 During the hearing, the individual plaintiffs expressed to the Court that they wanted to 5 dismiss the instant action with each party agreeing to bear its own attorney fees and costs. 6 Defendants had no objection to dismissal and agreed that each party would bear its own attorney fees 7 and costs. 8 9 10 Based on the agreement of the parties, which was expressed on the record in open court, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this matter be DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees costs. 11 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii 12 pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being 13 served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 14 court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 15 Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 16 may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 17 1991). 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.