3-17-99

500

Re: Carolyn Jean Powers V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20612)

On this day came R. Edison Hill, Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Dietzler, P.L.L.C., and Gary Becker, Becker Law Firm, and moved this Court to substitute Melbourne Mills, Jr., of the Law Office of Melbourne Mills, Jr., as counsel for Carolyn Jean Powers.

For good cause shown the Court hereby Orders and Grants the requested substitution of Melbourne Mills, Jr., for R. Edison Hill and Gary Becker, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings, correspondence, and certificates of service.

The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

3-17-99

501

Re: Cheryl L. Stowers V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20604)

On this day came R. Edison Hill, Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Dietzler, P.L.L.C., and Gary Becker, Becker Law Firm, and moved this Court to substitute Melbourne Mills, Jr., of the Law Office of Melbourne Mills, Jr., as counsel for plaintiff.

For good cause shown the Court hereby Orders and Grants the requested substitution of Melbourne Mills, Jr., for R. Edison Hill and Gary Becker, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings, correspondence, and certificates of service.

The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

3-17-99

502

Re: Anita Blankenship, Betty Davis and Connie Carol Webb V. American Home Products Corp., et al.

(98-20605)

On this day came R. Edison, Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, P.L.L.C, and Gary Becker, BECKER LAW FIRM, and moved this Court to substitute Melbourne Mills, Jr., of the LAW OFFICE OF MELBOURNE MILLS, JR., as counsel for Anita Blankenship, Betty Davis, and Connie Carol Webb.

For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERS and GRANTS the requested substitution of Melbourne Mills, Jr., for R. Edison Hill and Gary Becker, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings, correspondence, and certificates of service.

The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

3-17-99

503

Re: Melody B. Davoust and Leslie Massaro V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al. (98-2334)

IT IS ORDERED that defendant Jones Pharma. Inc. formerly known as Jones Medical Industries, Inc., as successor to Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AAbana@) Motion for Leave to Substitute Local Counsel is granted and Lloyd E. Williams and Mary A. Sliwinski have leave to appear as local counsel of record for Abana, and Loretta M. Griffin, Mark A. Smith and Heather Nelson have leave to withdraw as local counsel

3-17-99

504

Re: Pauline Chaffins (98-20576) & Deana Sullivan (98-20578) , et al. V. American Home Products, et al.

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion (#200611) for substitution of counsel for plaintiffs in the above captioned case is GRANTED. J.C. Powell and Gary Becker are hereby withdrawn as counsel and Melbourne Mills, Jr., 106 North Main Street, Versailes, KY 40383 is substituted as counsel of record for all named plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases.

3-17-99

505

Re: Rebecca Ann Ackison, et al., V. American Home Products Corporation, et al., (98-20579)

On this day came R. Edison, Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, P.L.L.C, and Gary Becker, BECKER LAW FIRM, and moved this Court to substitute Melbourne Mills, Jr., of the LAW OFFICE OF MELBOURNE MILLS, JR., as counsel for Victoria Collins.

For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERS and GRANTS the requested substitution of Melbourne Mills, Jr., for R. Edison Hill and Gary Becker, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings, correspondence, and certificates of service.

The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

3-17-99

506

Re: Joanne Armstrong V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20579)

Upon consideration of the motion of R. Edison Hill and the law firm of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, P.L.L.C. and Gary Becker and the Becker Law Firm to withdraw as counsel for Joanne Armstrong only (docket #200643), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions: See PTO for conditions.

3-17-99

507

Re: Mary Keenan, Rosalie Rose & Patricia Devlin V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al. (98-20040)

IT IS ORDERED that defendants Jones Pharma, Inc. formerly known as Jones Medical Industries, Inc., as successor to Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AAbana@) Motion for Leave to Substitute Local Counsel is granted and Lloyd E. Williams and Mary A. Sliwinski have leave to appear as local counsel of record for Abana, and Loretta M. Griffin, Mark A. Smith and Heather Nelson have leave to withdraw as local counsel.

3-17-99

508

Re: Dennis Lazar & Greg Pavalon V. Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al., (98-20396)

IT IS ORDERED that defendants Jones Pharma, Inc. formerly known as Jones Medical Industries, Inc., as successor to Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AAbana@) Motion for Leave to Substitute Local Counsel is granted and Lloyd E. Williams and Mary A. Sliwinski have leave to appear as local counsel of record for Abana, and Loretta M. Griffin, Mark A. Smith and Heather Nelson have leave to withdraw as local counsel.

3-17-99

509

Re: Donae Dupont, Deborah Darazs, Uhura Gram, Annie Lou Pruitt, Roxann C. Rymek V Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.(98-20362)

IT IS ORDERED that defendants Jones Pharma, Inc. formerly known as Jones Medical Industries, Inc., as successor to Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AAbana@) Motion for Leave to Substitute Local Counsel is granted and Lloyd E. Williams and Mary A. Sliwinski have leave to appear as local counsel of record for Abana, and Loretta M. Griffin, Mark A. Smith and Heather Nelson have leave to withdraw as local counsel

3-17-99

510

Re: Gail McCarthy V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al. (98-20500)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated between all parties hereto, by and through their undersigned attorneys, that plaintiff=s complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION (ASB@) only. This dismissal is based on plaintiff=s current inability to establish that she ingested SB=s phentermine product. Each party is to bear its own fees and costs.

All parties of this action that have entered an appearance and that remain in this action have executed this dismissal through the undersigned counsel of record. This stipulation does not affect the status of any other party.

Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties hereto, it is hereby ordered that SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION is dismissed from this action in its entirety with prejudice. Each side is to bear its own costs and fees.

3-17-99

511

Re: Oma Detwiler & Vicki Sanchez V. Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories Company, a Division of American Home Products Corp and SmithKline Beecham Corp. (98-20378)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated between all parties hereto, by and through their undersigned attorneys, that plaintiff=s complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION (ASB@) only. This dismissal is based on plaintiff=s current inability to establish that she ingested SB=s phentermine product. Each party is to bear its own fees and costs.

All parties of this action that have entered an appearance and that remain in this action have executed this dismissal through the undersigned counsel of record. This stipulation does not affect the status of any other party.

Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties hereto, it is hereby ordered that SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION is dismissed from this action in its entirety with prejudice. Each side is to bear its own costs and fees

3-17-99

512

Re: Joanne Armstrong V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20579)

Upon consideration of the motion of Moses Garcia, Esq. to withdraw as counsel for Karen Pino only (docket #200623), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions: see PTO for conditions

3-17-99

513

Re: Carol Fletcher & Michael Fletcher V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, American Home Products, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive (98-20686)

IT IS HEREBY stipulated and agreed that JAMES T. RANNEY be substituted as counsel representing plaintiff Carol Fletcher in the above entitled action, replacing Jeffrey B. Hays of Recht, Hays & Hayes, P.L.L.P.

All papers and notices in this action are to be served on James T. Ranney at the following address:

210 N. Higgins, Suite 336; Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 542-1448

3-17-99

514

Re: Rebecca Ann Ackison, et al. V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20579)

On this day came R. Edison Hill, PETERSON, CARPER, BEE & DEITZLER, P.L.L.C., and Gary Becker, BECKER LAW FIRM, and moved this Court to substitute Melbourne Mills, Jr., of the Law Office of Melbourne Mills, Jr. as counsel for the following plaintiffs:

Rebecca Ackison, Nellie Adkins, Louella Ann Booth, Patricia A. Branham, Opal Jane Byrd, Rosemary Click, Margaret Collier, Carolyn Sue Conley, Pennie L. Downey, Gwendolyn Jean Fetherolf, Vivian Louise Fitzwater, Doinald Travis Friley, Verna Crisp Hall, Amanda Jane Hamilton, Donna Jean Hardin, Jimmy Carroll Hardwick, Gina Renee Hays, Tony Curtis Hensley, John Huffman, Roberta Ann Hulett, Adie Mae Husarick, Ronnie Johnson, Juietta Catherine Keeton, Virginia L. Kitchen, Matthew Elliott Mayse, Tonia Lea Neville, Connie Sue Parsons, Belinda Gail Porter, Deborah Ann Ratliff, Pamela Sanders Warsham, Opal L. Silvey, Carole Ann Slone, Jeanette E. Springer, Leca Thompson, Theodore Garrett Wells, Debra A. Williams roger Dale Wright

For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERED and GRANTS the requested substitution of Melbourne Mills, Jr., for R. Edison Hill and Gary Becker, and further directs all parties and their respective co8unsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings, correspondence and, certificates of service. The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this order to all counsel of record.

3-17-99

515

Re: Joanne Dignan V. Gate Pharm, a division of Teva Pharm., USA, Inc. SmithKline Beecham Corporation; and A. H. Robins Company, Incorporated (98-20279)

Upon Plaintiff=s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice of Her Claims Against Defendants Gate Pharmaceuticals, a Division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. and SmithKline Beecham Corporation, there being no opposition by the Defendants, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims in this action against Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. and SmithKline Beecham Corporation are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear their respective costs.

3-17-99

516

Re: Shari Altmark V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharm., USA, Inc.; et al. (98-20230)

Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that plaintiffs shall be permitted to amend plaintiff=s complaint to add EON LABS MANUFACTURING, INC. as defendants in the above captioned matter.

3-18-99

517

Re: PMC=s petition for allocation of counsel fees & costs

Upon consideration of the PMC=s Petition for an allocation of counsel fees and costs (document #200378) and the responses thereto, IT IS ORDERED that PTO No. 467, dated February 10, 1999, which granted said motion in part, is hereby extended to all MDL No. 1203 civil actions, irrespective of the jurisdictions from which the actions were transferred in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1407 or otherwise.

3-18-99

518

Re: PMC=s petition for appointing J. Michael Papantonio to the PMC.

Upon consideration of the PMC=s Petition for an Order Appointing J. Michael Papantonio, Esquire to the PMC and the Docketing of An Agreement Entered into on February 15, 1999 Between the PMC and Levin, Middlebrooks, Thomas, Mitchell, Green, Echsner, Proctor & Papantonio, P.A. Concerning the PMC Work Product and the Establishment of an Amicabe Working Relationship with the PMC for the Mutual Benefit of the Clients of Levin, Middlebrooks, Thomas, Mitchell, Green, Echsner, Proctor and Papantonio, P.A., it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:

1. J. Michael Papantonio, Esquire is appointed as an additional member of the PMC, with all the rights, duties and responsibilities held by the original members of the PMC;

cont...

518

2. The Agreement dated February 15, 1999 between the PMC and the law firm of Levin, Middlebrook, Thomas, et al. (The ALevin Middlebrooks law firm@) is hereby docketed and approved by the Court to establish an amicable working relationship between the PMC and the Levin Middlebrooks Law Firm and the clients of that law firm

3. The approval of this agreement shall be on the terms set forth in PTO 467, including the accompanying Memorandum and Order, in particular paragraphs 1 through 9 inclusive of PTO No. 467 relating to the Set Aside for Counsel Fees and Costs in MDL 1203 and paragraph 13 through 21 inclusive of PTO No. 467 relating to State-Federal Coordination.

** Agreement is attached **

3-18-99

519

Re: non-party designations

Certain states have statutes which permit the jury to allocate responsibility for a plaintiff=s injuries to a non-party only if the defendant has provided notice designating such potentially responsible non-parties prior to trial. Such states include Michigan, Indiana, Colorado, Tennessee and perhaps others. The defendants= designation of non-parties is generally required to be made within a certain time period after the filing of the Complaint. Colorado, for example, requires that such designation be made within 90 days following commencement of the action. C.R.S. 13-21-111.5(3)(b).

The American Home Products Corporation defendants have made various motions to extend these deadlines, citing primarily the fact that it cannot reasonably designate potentially responsible non-parties until after the plaintiff has completed the Fact Sheet required by PTO 22 See, e.g., American Home Products Corporation and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation=s Motion for Further Enlargement of Time to Designate Non-Party Tort-Feasors, filed in Kepler V. American Home Products Corporation, No. 98-20752, Document No. 200462A.

For these reasons and those discussed at the Status Conference held on January 23 (Tr. At 89-93) and February 18 (Tr. At 103-106) it is hereby ORDERED that such non-party designations shall be due within 90 days after the defendant has received the plaintiffs= completed Fact Sheet or at such date as it would otherwise be due under state law, whatever is later. Provided, however, that in the event such dates have already passed as of the date of this Order, then such designations shall be made within 60 days of the entry of this Order.

Nothing in this Order is intended to prevent defendants from seeking leave in any particular case, in this Court or in the transferor Courts, upon good cause shown and in conformity with the relevant state statutes, for making such designations at any later dates than those specified herein.

3-18-99

520

Re: Valerie R. Smith & Reginald Smith V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20388)

All parties having appeared in this action consenting thereto, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), this case is dismissed as to GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, a Division of TEVA USA-BIOCRAFT; ION LABS, INC.; RICHWOOD PHARM CO., INC. and/or SHIRE RICHWOOD, INC.; SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.; MEDEVA PHARM, INC.; and MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS MANUFACTURING, INC., without prejudice. Plaintiffs= claims remain pending against AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS, CORP., WYETH-AYERST LABORATORIES, INC., INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and A.H. ROBINS CO. INC. The Clerk is requested to enter the Dismissal accordingly. SO ORDERED.

3-19-99

521

Re: hearing held on March 18, 1999

At a hearing held on March 18, 1999, the court ruled as follows:

1.) A hearing will be held on Tuesday March 23, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. on motions involving the deposition of Dr. Heidi Connolly, M.D.

2.) The next status conference will be held on April 22, 1999 at 10:00 a.m.

3-24-99

522

Re: hearing held on March 23, 1999

At a hearing held on 3-23-99 the court ruled as follows:

A. Defendant, American Home Products Corporation=s Motion to Compel Enforcement of Subpoena Duce Tecum Against Third Parties is withdrawn.

B. Motion of Non-parties Mayo Foundation and Heidi M. Connolly, M.D. (ADr. Connolly@) for Protective Order is withdrawn.

C. All outstanding subpoenas of Dr. Connolly and/or the Mayo Foundation are withdrawn and all motions concerning those subpoenas are moot.

D. There will be no further depositions of Dr. Connolly and/or the Mayo Foundation in this MDL proceeding without further order of the Court for good cause shown.

E. The deposition of Dr. Connolly will proceed according to the following terms:

1.) Dr. Connolly will submit to a deposition on a minimum of thirty (30) days notice on a mutually agreeable date to take place in Rochester, MN at the Mayo Foundation Legal Department, unless another site is agreed upon by Dr. Connolly.

2.) The deposition will be fact based and Dr. Connolly will not answer opinion questions. In particular, questions may be asked concerning the factual basis for the article he published in the New England Journal of Medicine, questions may be asked about what statements she has made at medical conferences or symposia, and questions may be asked about the factual basis for such statements at the medical conference or symposia or concerning the New England Journal of Medicine article. No questions concerning opinions, thought processes, or other non-factual matters will be allowed.

3.) Questions may be asked concerning Dr. Connolly=s contact with any party in this action and its representatives and with the FDA.

3-24-99

523

Re: Nancy Goodman V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20395)

It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear it own costs and counsel fee.

Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.

This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of the Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.

3-24-99

524

Re: Peter Tripple, Vicki Bashful-Smith, Oriana Zill V. Wyeth Ayerst Labs, et al. (98-20333)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff VICKEY BASHFUL-SMITH and defendant FISONS CORPORATION and all the parties who have appeared in this action (said parties= identities appearing below), through their designated counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed as to defendant FISONS CORPORATION only, without prejudice. Plaintiff stipulates to this dismissal on the grounds that she has no evidence that she ingested Ionamin. Proceedings have been stayed as to defendant INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS.

3-24-99

525

Re: Peggy Montgomery, et al. V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20264)

It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED & DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.

Further, the plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.

cont...

525

This stipulation is filed on behalf of all Defendants who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, A.H. Robbins, Company, Inc., Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5, of PTO No. 270.

3-24-99

526

Re: Rozanne Moreno, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20360)

It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED & DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.

Further, the plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.

This stipulation is filed on behalf of all Defendants who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, A.H. Robbins, Company, Inc., Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5, of PTO No. 270.

3-24-99

527

Re: Kimberly Poling, et al. V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20265)

It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED & DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.

Further, the plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.

This stipulation is filed on behalf of all Defendants who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, A.H. Robbins, Company, Inc., Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5, of PTO No. 270.

3-24-99

528

Re: Rebecca Ann Ackison, et al. V. American Home Products Corp, et al. (98-20579)

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED & DECREED that plaintiff, Ellen Hutchison, is dismissed with prejudice from the above captioned claim.

3-24-99

529

Re: New Hampshire Insurance Company V. Les Laboratoires Servier and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (98-20770)

It is agreed by and between Arnold Levin, Esq., counsel for the proposed interveners, Sharyn Wish and the Certified Class, and David L. Pennington, Esq. counsel for Defendant, Les Laboratoires Servier, that the time within which the defendant may respond to the Motion of Sharyn Wish and the Certified Class in Civil Action No. 989-20594 to intervene in this action shall be extended to and including April 12, 1999

3-24-99

530

Re: Reliance Insurance Company of Illinois V. Les Laboratoires Servier and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (98-20733)

It is agreed by and between Arnold Levin, Esq., counsel for the proposed interveners, Sharyn Wish and the Certified Class, and David L. Pennington, Esq. counsel for Defendant, Les Laboratoires Servier, that the time within which the defendant may respond to the Motion of Sharyn Wish and the Certified Class in Civil Action No. 989-20594 to intervene in this action shall be extended to and including April 12, 1999

3-24-99

531

Re: Columbia Insurance Company V. Les Laboratoires Servier and Interneuron Pharm, Inc. (99-20037)

It is agreed by and between Arnold Levin, Esq., counsel for the proposed interveners, Sharyn Wish and the Certified Class, and David L. Pennington, Esq. counsel for Defendant, Les Laboratoires Servier, that the time within which the defendant may respond to the Motion of Sharyn Wish and the Certified Class in Civil Action No. 989-20594 to intervene in this action shall be extended to and including April 12, 1999

3-24-99

532

Re: Barbara Daly V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20931)

It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED & DECREED that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), in favor of all named defendants with all parties to bear their own costs and counsel

cont...

532

fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegation have been stricken from the Complaint under PTO 450. This Stipulation is being submitted on behalf of all the defendants named in the Complaint. Provided however, that this Order shall have no res judicata effect with respect to the assertion of any personal injury claims in the future, and provided that the plaintiff further agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for her personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in Federal Court. This document may be executed in counterparts.

3-24-99

533

Re: Marvin Sample, Jr. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20480)

Plaintiff and defendants, having stipulated for the dismissal of plaintiff=s claims against defendants without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), the Court approves such stipulation and plaintiff=s claims against all defendants are dismissed without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs. SO ORDERED.

3-24-99

534

Re: Cindy L. Coats V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al. (98-20186)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated between all parties hereto, by and through their under signed attorney, that plaintiff=s complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants SmithKline Beecham Corporation (ASKB@); Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMedeva@); Ion Labs, Inc. (AIon@); Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and/or Jones Pharma, Inc., formerly known as Jones Medical Industries, Inc., successor to Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AAbana@); and Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, U.S.A., Inc (AGate@). This dismissal is based on plaintiff=s inability to establish that she ingested a SKB, Medeva, Ion, Abana, or Gate phentermine product. Each party is to bear their own fees and costs.

All parties to this cation that have entered an appearance and that remain in this action have executed this dismissal through the undersigned counsel of record. This stipulation does not affect the status of any other party.

3-30-99

535

Re: New Hampshire Insurance Company, et al. V. Les Laboratories Servier, et al. (98-20770)

Plaintiffs= motion for admission pro hac vice (#200672) is DENIED. This motion is unnecessary under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on MDL.

3-30-99

536

Re: Lori Eggleston V. American home Products Corp., et al. (98-20617)

Motion having been made by the Plaintiff, Lori Eggleston, and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff=s tendered Amended Complaint,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to name Amide Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as a party-defendant to the above-styled action.

3-30-99

537

Re: Rebecca Ann Ackison, et al. V. American Home Products Corp, et al. (98-20579)

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Tammy Adkins, Evelyn Jarrell and Shirley O=Neil are dismissed with prejudice from the above captioned claim.

3-30-99

538

Re: Ninth Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation

Upon consideration of the 9^{th Application by the Special Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (12/1/98 through 12/31/98), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is hereby GRANTED and it is directed that the parties reimburse the Special Discovery Mater for disbursements and compensation for legal fees in the amount of $30,460.03 for the period from 12-1-98 through 12-31-98, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^3-30-99

⁵³⁹

^{Re: Tenth Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation}

^{Upon consideration of the 10th Application by the Special Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (1/1/99 through 1/31/99), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is hereby GRANTED and it is directed that the parties reimburse the Special Discovery Mater for disbursements and compensation for legal fees in the amount of $44,522.52 for the period from 1-1-99 through 1-31-99, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^3-30-99

⁵⁴⁰

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 12}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 12 of Special Discovery Master (as to Plaintiff=s redaction of medical records prior to production) is AFFIRMED.}

⁵⁴¹

^4-7-99

⁵⁴²

^{Re: Bonae Dupont, et al. V. Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (98-20362)}

^{It is ORDERED that the motion of Plaintiff (#200766) of plaintiff Deborah Darazs for voluntary dismissal of all defendants without prejudice is GRANTED.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁴³

^{Re: Eleventh Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation}

^{Upon consideration of the 11th Application by the Special Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (2/1/99 through 2/28/99), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is hereby GRANTED and it is directed that the parties reimburse the Special Discovery Mater for disbursements and compensation for legal fees in the amount of $47,089.60 for the period from 2-1-99 through 2-28-99, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁴⁴

^{Re: Christine L. Golson V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., and Fisons Corporation (98-20005)}

^{The motion of Plaintiff, Christine L. Golson, in the above-entitled action, for an order Granting Leave to Amend Complaint to Name a New Defendant Pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,}

^{Good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that plaintiff=s Motion for an Order Granting Leave to Amend Complaint to Name a New defendant Pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby granted and that the Amended Complaint is deemed filed.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁴⁵

^{Re: Teresa Rice Mitchell V. Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (98-20370)}

^{The Motion to Drop the Defendant named in the Complaint as Physician=s Weight Los Centers, Inc., and properly designated a Physicians Weight Loss Center of America, Inc. as a party to this civil action is hereby GRANTED. The claim against Physicians Weight Loss Center of America, Inc. are hereby dismissed, with prejudice, Plaintiffs and Physicians Weight Loss Center of America, Inc. to bear their own costs.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁴⁶

^{Re: Rita Ann Snodgrass V. American Home Products, et al. (99-20039)}

^{It is hereby stipulated and agreed that JANET G. ABARAY be substituted as counsel representing plaintiff Rita Ann Snodgrass in the above-entitled action, replacing Charles E. Moore of Moore, Malone & Safreed. Plaintiff Rita Ann Snodgrass has agreed to this matter by executing the attached Exhibit A.}

^{All Papers and notices in this action are to be served on Janet G. Abaray at the following address:}

^{Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁴⁷

^{Re: Patricia L. Dukes V. American Home Products, et al. (99-20772)}

^{It is hereby stipulated and agreed that JANET G. ABARAY be substituted as counsel representing plaintiff Rita Ann Snodgrass in the above-entitled action, replacing Charles E. Moore of Moore, Malone & Safreed. Plaintiff Rita Ann Snodgrass has agreed to this matter by executing the attached Exhibit A.}

^{All Papers and notices in this action are to be served on Janet G. Abaray at the following address:}

^{Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁴⁸

^{Re: John H. Davis & Lillian M. Davis V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. , et al. (98-20167)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that Defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION shall be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned matter.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁴⁹

^{Re: Louise Goodwin V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. , et al. (98-20105)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that Defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION shall be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned matter.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵⁰

^{Re: Darlene Cox V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. , et al. (98-20106)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that Defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION shall be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned matter.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵¹

^{Re: Marilyn Axelrod V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20588)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff, MARILYN AXELROD, and Defendant, GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, DIVISION OF TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through their designated counsel, that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a), the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed, with prejudice, as to Defendant, GATE PHARMACEUTICALS, DIVISION OF TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵²

^{Re: Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal of All Plaintiffs= Claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation and Dismissing all claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation with Prejudice.}

^{(Pursuant to Produce Identification Procedures)}

^{Upon the Motion of defendant Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by all of the plaintiffs against it in the above captioned action and to dismiss all claims asserted against it with prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all plaintiffs= claims in this action against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is approved, and (2) Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.}

^{Dismissed to whole Civil Action 98-20579}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵³

^{Re: Cheryl L. Stowers V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20604)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal of All Plaintiffs= Claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation and Dismissing all claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation with Prejudice.}

^{(Pursuant to Produce Identification Procedures)}

^{Upon the Motion of defendant Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by all of the plaintiffs against it in the above captioned action and to dismiss all claims asserted against it with prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all plaintiffs= claims in this action against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is approved, and (2) Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵⁴

^{Re: Carolyn Jean Powers V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20612)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal of All Plaintiffs= Claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation and Dismissing all claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation with Prejudice.}

^{(Pursuant to Produce Identification Procedures)}

^{Upon the Motion of defendant Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by all of the plaintiffs against it in the above captioned action and to dismiss all claims asserted against it with prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all plaintiffs= claims in this action against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is approved, and (2) Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵⁵

^{Re: Gail McCartney V. American Home Products Corp, et al (98-20500)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal of All Plaintiffs= Claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation and Dismissing all claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation with Prejudice.}

^{(Pursuant to Produce Identification Procedures)}

^{Upon the Motion of defendant Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by all of the plaintiffs against it in the above captioned action and to dismiss all claims asserted against it with prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all plaintiffs= claims in this action against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is approved, and (2) Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵⁶

^{Re: Connie Bailey, Avonell Blackburn, Michael Cahal, Tonda Donta, Lela Foreman, Brenda Jarrell, Anita Lemaster, Loretta Moore, Rebecca Stephens, Deanna Sullivan V. American Home Products (98-20578)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal of All Plaintiffs= Claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation and Dismissing all claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation with Prejudice.}

^{(Pursuant to Produce Identification Procedures)}

^{Upon the Motion of defendant Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by all of the plaintiffs against it in the above captioned action and to dismiss all claims asserted against it with prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all plaintiffs= claims in this action against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is approved, and (2) Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵⁷

^{Re: Margaret Barker, Glen Blevins, Pauline Chaffins V. American Home Products (98-20576)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal of All Plaintiffs= Claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation and Dismissing all claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation with Prejudice.}

^{(Pursuant to Produce Identification Procedures)}

^{Upon the Motion of defendant Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by all of the plaintiffs against it in the above captioned action and to dismiss all claims asserted against it with prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all plaintiffs= claims in this action against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is approved, and (2) Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵⁸

^{Re: Anita Blankenship, Betty A. Davis & Connie Carole Webb V. American Home Products (98-20603)}

^{Order Approving Stipulation of Dismissal of All Plaintiffs= Claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation and Dismissing all claims against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation with Prejudice.}

^{(Pursuant to Produce Identification Procedures)}

^{Upon the Motion of defendant Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation to approve the stipulation for voluntary dismissal of all claims asserted by all of the plaintiffs against it in the above captioned action and to dismiss all claims asserted against it with prejudice, and there being no opposition by any party who has appeared, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that (1) the Stipulation of Dismissal of all plaintiffs= claims in this action against Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is approved, and (2) Rosemont Pharmaceutical Corporation be and hereby is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁵⁹

^{Re: Lillian Wehunt V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20641)}

^{Order Remanding Case to California Superior Court.}

^{Plaintiff Lillian Wehunt=s Motion to Remand; or Alternatively to Amend Complaint and Remand came on regularly for hearing on December 16, 1998 before the Honorable Louis C. Bechtle. The Court GRANTED the motion as set forth its order in PTO No. 413. Plaintiff having filed her Amended Complaint pursuant to PTO No. 413 and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1.) Since the naming of California residents Elizabeth A. Lepoidevin and High Desert Medical Group as defendants in the Amended Complaint filed on March 12, 1999 destroys diversity, this Court no longer ha jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Therefore, the Court sua sponte remands this case to the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, North District, where it was originally filed a Case No. MC 009010.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁶⁰

^{Re: William Kaufman V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20146)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff(s) to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation. Plaintiff hall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Defendants American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayert Laboratories, Inc. and Interneuron, Inc./Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claim in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals. Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁶¹

^{Re: Carol Vonasch, et al., V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, a division of American Home Products Co., et al., (98-20194)}

^{Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated between all parties hereto, by and through their undersigned counsel, that Plaintiffs= Complaint as to defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION (ASB@), only, is dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal is based upon each listed Plaintiff=s inability to establish that he/she ingested SB=s phentermine product. Each party i to bear its own fees and costs.}

^{All parties to this action that have entered an appearance and that remain in this action have executed this dismissal through their undersigned counsel of record. This stipulation does not affect the statu of any other party.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁶²

^{Re: Carol Vonach, Barbara Carlin, Michele Ippolito V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., et al. (98-20194)}

^{Stipulation and Order RE Dismissal (Rule 41(a))}

^{The undersigned hereby mutually agree and stipulate for and on behalf of the parties represented by them that:}

^{1.) They are each authorized to enter into this stipulation.}

^{2.) This stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties to the action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a);}

^{3.) Plaintiff Michele A. Ippolito only dismisses the action without prejudice, each party to bear her or its own costs and attorney fees. The Clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly; and}

^{4.) Plaintiff Michele A. Ippolito hereby stipulates and agrees that to the extent she re-files a lawsuit related to her use of phentermine, Pondimin (fenfluramine) and/or Redux (dexfenfluramine), she will file her Complaint in federal court.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁶³

^{Re: Fred A. Pino, Karen J. Pino and James Abbott V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al.(98-20552)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff(s) to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation. Plaintiff hall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Gate Pharmaceuticals, A Division of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corporation; Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., Ion Laboratories, Inc.; Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, American Home Products Corporation; and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claim in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁶⁴

^{Re: Patsy Lee Gorell V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., et al. (98-20448)}

^{It is hereby Stipulated by and between plaintiff PATSY LEE CORELL and defendant MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and all the parties who have appeared in this action (said parties= identities appearing below), through their designated counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed a to defendant MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. only, without prejudice. Plaintiff stipulates to this dismissal on the grounds that she has no evidence that she ingested Ionamin.}

^4-7-99

⁵⁶⁵

^{Re: New Hampshire Insurance Company and AIG Europe (UK) Limited, London V. Les Laboratories Servier and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (98-20770)}

^{Plaintiffs= motion for the Admissions Pro Hac Vice of Marlene Monteleone, Esquire and Allen L. Sheridan, Esq. , to appear in this Court as attorneys for Plaintiffs is GRANTED, and the aforesaid counsel are specially admitted pro hac vice to the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to serve as co-counsel in this matter.}

^4-8-99

⁵⁶⁶

^{Re: Mona F. Karadshi, Versia G. Dillard V. Abana Pharm. Inc., et al. (98-20041)}

^{Class allegations having been stricken from Plaintiff= Complaint in the above captioned matter pursuant to PTO No. 450 and the remaining named Plaintiffs, MONA KARADSHI and VERSIA DILLARD, wishing to stipulate with all of the Defendants to a voluntary dismissal under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:}

^{1.) That they are each authorized to enter into this Stipulation}

^{2.) That this stipulation represents the stipulation of all parties who have appeared in the action within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(1)(ii); and}

^{3.) Plaintiffs dismiss this action without prejudice, each party to bear their own costs and attorney=s fees. The Clerk is requested to enter the dismissal accordingly}

^4-9-99

⁵⁶⁷

^{Re: Motion of Certain Phentermine Defendants for Leave to File Substitute Memorandum of Law and Contested Findings of Fact}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion of Certain Phentermine Defendants for Leave to File Substitute Memorandum of Law and Contested Findings of Fact (Document #200702) in Civil Actions 98-20138, 98-20257, 98-20256, 98-20355, 98-20466, 98-20137, 98-20362, 98-20077, 98-20075, 98-20080, 98-20047, 98-20022, 98-20055, 98-20460, 98-20377, 98-20122, 98-29938, 98-20012, 98-20125, 98-20076, 98-20526, 98-20040, 98-20353, 98-20102, 98-20249, 98-20250 and 98-20487, said motion is GRANTED.}

^4-9-99

⁵⁶⁸

^{Re: American Home Product=s Motion to Dismiss}

^{Upon consideration of American Home Product=s Motion to dismiss, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims of the following plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with submission of fact sheets pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 395:}

^{1.) Paula Crowley 98-20042; (2) Linda Rea 98-20143 (3) Susan Smugala 98-20239); Ana Rodriguez (98-20286 (4) Ana Rodriguez 98-20286 (5) Wilfredo Melgar 98-20224 (6) Crystal DeStefano 98-20225 (7) Jesus Melgar 98-20226 (8) Rosa Melgar 98-20227 (9) Amy Miller 98-20020}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims of plaintiff Kathleen Schram in Civil Action No. 98-20128 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with PTO No. 446.}

^4-12-99

⁵⁶⁹

^{Re: Patricia L. Duke and Darrell Dukes V. Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (98-20772)}

^{The parties hereby consent that, for the purpose of reviewing additional materials now made available to plaintiffs through the PMC document depository, plaintiffs Patricia L. and Darrell Duke shall have until Friday, April 30, 1999 in which to file a Supplemental Opposition Brief to defendant Les Laboratoires Servier=s (ALLS@) pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and for Forum Non Conveniens, and LLS shall thereafter have until Friday, May 28, 1999 in which to file its Reply Brief.}

^4-12-99

⁵⁷⁰

^{Re: Rita Ann Snodgrass V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20039)}

^{The parties hereby consent that, for the purpose of reviewing additional materials now made available to plaintiffs through the PMC document depository, plaintiff Rita Ann Snodgrass shall have until Friday, April 30, 1999 in which to file a Supplemental Opposition Brief to defendant Les Laboratoires Servier=s (ALLS@) pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and for Forum Non Conveniens, and LLS shall thereafter have until Friday May 28, 1999 in which to file its Reply Brief.}

^4-13-99

⁵⁷¹

^{Re: Ronnie Cadam V. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (98-20529)}

^{Upon consideration of Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s (AQualitest@) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 4(m) (Document #200661) and Ronnie Cadam=s (APlaintiff@) response thereto, IT IS ORDERED that aid motion is DENIED.}

^{Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 4, 1998 in the Superior Court of the State of California. Plaintiff attempted to serve Qualitest on March 26, 1998 by personally serving the Complaint on Prentice Hall Corporation System, Inc. (APrentice Hall@), Agent for Service. (Pl.=s Mem. At 2.) On March 30, 1998, defendants other than Qualitest filed a timely Notice of Removal to the Northern District of California. On July 1, 1998, this action was transferred to this court as part of MDL No. 1203. Qualitest filed this motion to dismiss on February 24, 1999, stating that Prentice Hall was not its correct service agent and that Qualitest}

^cont...

⁵⁷¹

^{was never properly served. Plaintiff states that a Complaint was properly served on Qualitest March 1, 1999, subsequent to the filing of this motion. (Pl.=s Mem. at 4; Tindal Dec. Ex. H.)}

^{Qualitest moves to dismiss for Plaintiff=s failure to timely serve the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m), which provides:}

^{If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.}

^{Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). The Third Circuit has set forth a two step process for district courts to employ. Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3d Cir. 1995). If Agood cause exists for an extension of time,@ then Athe district court must extend time for service and the inquiry is ended.@ Id. However, if good cause is lacking, Athe court may in its discretion decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or extend time for service.@ Id.}

^{The court finds that there exists no good cause to excuse the lateness of service. In determining whether good cause exists, Aa court=s primary focus is on the plaintiff=s reasons for not complying with the time limit in the first place.=@ Boley V. Kaymark, 123 F.3d 756, 758 (3d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1038 (1998). Plaintiff argues that she personally served Prentice Hall with the good faith belief that she was properly serving Qualitest. (Pl.=s Mem. at 2) However, Plaintiff does not explain why her counsel mistakenly believed Prentice Hall was a proper service agent for Qualitest. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not explain why her counsel never inquired into the reasons Qualitest did not file an answer or otherwise appear for eleven months after the Complaint was served. The court finds that such inaction demonstrates an absence of good cause to excuse the lateness of filing.}

^{Although good cause is lacking, the court will exercise its discretion to excuse the lateness of service. IN so doing, the court looks to the prejudice imposed upon the parties in excusing or refusing to excuse Plaintiff=s late service. See Boley, 123 F. 3d at 759 (discussing prejudice of parties). Plaintiff points out that the applicable California statute of limitations on her clam against Qualitest has run and so a refusal to excuse later service would extinguish her claims. (Pl.=s Mem. at 1-2.) The Third Circuit has stated that A[i]f the district court determines that good cause does not exist...it [may] consider whether the running of the statute of limitations would warrant granting an extension of time.@ Petrucelli, 46 F. 3d at 1306. The running of the statue of limitations in this case weights in favor of excusing the late service. See Boley, 123 F. 3d at 759 (stating A[d]istrict courts have consistently interpreted Rule 4(m) in the same way, treating the running of the statute of limitations as a factor favoring the plaintiff and not as a basis for potential prejudice to the defendant@); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) Adv. Comm. Notes (1993) (stating A[r]elief may be justified, for example, if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the refiled action.@)}

^{The court also looks to potential prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay of service. Boley, 123 F. 3d at 759 (stating A[d] elay may damage a defendant=s ability to defend on the merits@). Here, Qualitest argues that it is Airreparably harmed and seriously prejudiced as a result of the Plaintiff=s intentional, long term delay in serving [the Complaint].@ (Qualitest Mem. at 4.) However, the only example it provide to demonstrate prejudice is that Qualitest was absent at Plaintiff=s deposition and has not been served with a copy of Plaintiff=s Fact Sheet. Id. at 5. In light of the fact that Qualitest may obtain such discovery through the procedures established in this MDL No. 1203 litigation, the court finds that Qualitest=s absence at the Plaintiff=s deposition and its failure to receive a fact sheet is not, in and of itself, prejudicial. Moreover, Qualitest does not claim that it was unaware this case was pending against it. The court also notes that Qualitest is currently named defendant in other MDL No,. 1203 civil actions facing substantially similar claims as Plaintiff asserts here. The court finds that Plaintiff would be prejudiced by granting the motion to dismiss and finds no prejudice to Qualitest in excusing Plaintiff=s tardy service.}

^{For the foregoing reasons, the court excuses plaintiff=s late service and has denied Qualitest=s motion to dismiss.}

⁵⁷²

⁵⁷³

⁵⁷⁴

⁵⁷⁵

⁵⁷⁶

^4-22-99

⁵⁷⁷

^{Re: Anita Blakenship, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al.}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of R. Edison Hill and the law firm of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee and Deitzler, P.L.L.C., and Gary Becker and the Becker Law Firm to withdraw as counsel for Betty Davis only (docket #200778), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions. (See PTO for conditions.)}

^4-23-99

⁵⁷⁸

^{Re: Muriel Thelen, an individual, as executor for the estate of Michael Thelen V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al}

^(98-20672)

^{Upon consideration of plaintiff Muriel Thelen=s motion for remand, or in the alternative, to amend the Complaint and remand and defendants Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company=s and American Home Products Corporation=s response thereto, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1.) The motion for remand is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and}

^{2.) The alternative motion for leave to amend the Complaint is GRANTED.}

^{(See Attached Memorandum and Order - State Court Remand)}

^4-23-99

⁵⁷⁹

^{Re: Eileen S. Collins and William Collins V. Les Laboratoires Servier, et al. (98-20299)}

^{Plaintiffs Eileen Collins and William Collin and the Plaintiffs Management Committee have moved this Court for an Order for the issuance of a letter of request for the production of documents from Les Laboratoires Servier, a corporate entity of France.}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that}

^{1.) Plaintiffs= motion is granted; and}

^{2.) The Clerk of the Court shall issue to the appropriate French authority the letter of request in the form attached hereto.}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸⁰

^{Re: ACurrently Ongoing Study@}

^{Upon agreement of the parties, it is hereby}

^{1.) A study is ACurrently Ongoing Study@ within the meaning of this Order if it is not subject to the conditions described in paragraph 2 herein and it is a study involving the collection and analysis of data pursuant to a written protocol and data are being actively collected pursuant to the terms of the written protocol and no more than 150 days have passed since the conclusion of such data collection activities.}

^{2.) A study is not a ACurrently Ongoing Study@ within the meaning of this Order if:}

^{A.) The results of the study have been accepted for publication or otherwise presented publicly; or}

^{B.) Those sponsoring or conducting the study have formed an intent to cancel, terminate or otherwise abandon the study, provided that such a determination will be conclusively presumed if those sponsoring or conducting the study have not conducted any work concerning the study for a period of ninety (90) days.}

^{3.) To the extent that Request for International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad n Civil or Commercial Matters, dated April 23, 1999 (12) seeks documents concerning tests, studies and the like which are not ACurrently Ongoing Studies,@ as defined herein, Les Laboratoires Servier (ALLS@) shall either produce the documents and information requested or, if such documents and information are withheld from production, shall describe the documents in a privilege log.}

^{4.) Within thirty (30 days from the date the French Ministry of Justice approves the Request for International Judicial Assistance, dated April 23, 1999, LLS shall produce the following information with}

^cont...

⁵⁸⁰

^{respect to any Currently Ongoing Study to the extent that LLS has access to such information:}

^{(a) a written list of each such study which includes a description of the study, the date on which each such study was initiated and the anticipated date on which each such study will be completed;}

^{(b) The written protocol for each such study;}

^{(c) The statistical plan for each such study;}

^{(d) Sample data entry forms for each such study; and}

^{(e) A brief description of the current status of the study, e.g. AEnrollment of patients is now X percent complete,@ Adata collection is now Y percent Complete,@ Athe code has been broken and data analysis is currently underway.@}

^{5.) LLS shall provide supplemental disclosures containing the information required by the preceding paragraph within a reasonable time after such information is available to LLS.}

^{6.) If a study was a Currently Ongoing Study as of the date of this Order and thereafter ceases to be a ACurrently Ongoing Study@ within the meaning of this Order, then LL shall disclose all documents concerning the study which it is otherwise required to produce pursuant to the Request for International Judicial Assistance, dated April 23, 1999, or, to the extent that such information and documents are withheld from production pursuant to a bona fide claim of privilege or other protection from discovery, LLS shall describe the information and documents withheld from production in a privilege log.}

^{7.) The names of the principal investigators disclosed pursuant to 4(a) and the progress reports disclosed pursuant to 4(e) of this Order shall be disclosed only to the members of the Plaintiffs= Management Committee, the members of the PMC Discovery Committee, and the members of their law firms and, except upon Order for the Court for good cause shown, shall not be disclosed to any other person or used as a basis for discovery until such time as the study at issue ceases to be a Acurrently ongoing study@ within the meaning of this Order.}

^{8.) Nothing in this Order shall be construed to require disclosure by any party of any materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, except as hereinafter provided. In particular, studies planned or conducted for a party, in anticipation of litigation, by a person withing the scope of FRCP 26(b)(4)(B), shall not be subject to the disclosure requirements of 3 through 6 hereof, until and unless (i) such person is designated by such party as a testifying expert in MDL 1203 or in a state court action alleging damages as a result of the ingestion of diet drugs; or (ii) such party seeks to rely upon the results of such a study a evidence or as the basis of testimony by any person, in a trial of any action consolidated in MDL 1203 or in a state court action alleging damages as a result of the ingestion of diet drugs; or (iii) the party seeking disclosure makes the showing of substantial need required by FRCP 26(b)(3) or of exceptional circumstance required by FRCP 26(b)(4)(B); provided, however, the Court may preclude any party from introducing into evidence or otherwise relying on any study withheld from production pursuant to the terms of this paragraph on a showing that information concerning the study has not been disclosed in sufficient time to permit the opposing party a fair opportunity to obtain information and discovery concerning the study or to otherwise respond to or defend against such evidence.}

^{9.) This Order is without prejudice to the parties= rights to seek or oppose greater disclosure concerning Currently Ongoing Studies than provided for herein and shall not be construed to effect the burden of persuasion in connection with any such application to the Court.}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸¹

^{Re: Janice Price V. American Home Products Corp, et al. (98-20516)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendant who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. and A.H. Robins Company against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸²

^{Re: Vernal L. Ott and Peggy Young V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al. (98-20148)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendant who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being Gate Pharmaceuticals (a division of Teva Pharm, USA, Inc), SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Jones Medical Industries, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richwood Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., ION Laboratories, Inc. and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulation of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸³

^{Re: Sanchez V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Lab (Division of American Home) (98-20088)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendant who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Company, Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸⁴

^{Re: Stroud, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products and A.H. Robins Co.(98-20094)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint of Connie Kaye Stroud and Rachel Evelyn Stanley (Athe dismissing plaintiffs=) only in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO 450.}

^{Further, the dismissing Plaintiffs (Connie Kaye Stroud and Rachel Evelyn Stanley) agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Order does not affect the claims of Fran Mathews, who has not dismissed her claims for personal injury and intends to continue litigating personal injury claims under the caption set forth above.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who has appeared in the above captioned matter, those being Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products corporation and A.H. Robins Company, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint of the Adismissing plaintiffs@ only, shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸⁵

^{Re: Linda S. Higgs, et al. V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, (Division of Teva), SmithKline Beecham Corp., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc. A.H. Robins Company (98-20298)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendant who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being Gate Pharmaceuticals, A Division of Teva, Pharmaceuticals, SmithKline Beecham Corp., Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and A.H. Robins Company, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸⁶

^{Re: Jarrell V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (98-20002)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who have appeared in the above captioned matter, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of the Stipulation.}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸⁷

^{Re: Sherman V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (98-20033)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above captioned matter, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸⁸

^{Re: Paone V. American Home Products Corporation and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. (98-20003)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendant who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270}

^4-23-99

⁵⁸⁹

^{Re: Dumont V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Gate Pharm. (Div. Of Teva), Interneuron Pharm, SmithKline Beecham, Abana Pharm. Inc., Medeva Pharm. Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co. Inc., Ion Labs., Inc., and A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (98-20060)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendant who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being Wyeth-Ayerst labs Co., Gate Pharm. (A Division of Teva) Interneuron Pharm., SmithKline Beecham, Abana Pharm, Inc., Medeva Pharm. Inc., Richwood Phar. Co., Inc., Ion Labs. Inc., and A.H. Robins Co. Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm. Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^4-26-99

⁵⁹⁰

^{Re: Communication with a physician or health care provider}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all parties wishing to communicate about a particular Plaintiff with a treating physician or health care provider must proceed with such communication only a permitted by the applicable state law governing communications with a physician or health care provider. When contacting a physician or health care provider, the parties shall clearly identify himself or herself and identify the party he or she is representing in a particular case.}

^{A treating physician or other health care professional subpoenaed to testify as a fact witness shall be entitled to reimbursement by the party issuing the subpoena in an amount equal to the lesser of his or her normal hourly rate or $300.00 per hour, unless the Court for good cause shown approves a higher rate.}

^{A dispute arising regarding payment of treating physician or health care professional hall not delay the commencement of the deposition. At the appropriate time, such disputes will resolved thought the Special Discovery Master.}

^4-27-99

⁵⁹¹

^{Re: Dondra R. Gibson V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (Division of American Home Products Corp.) American Home Products Corp., Rugby Laboratories, Inc. (99-20101)}

^{Upon agreement reached between Plaintiff Dondra R. Gibson and Defendant Rugby Laboratories, Inc., and the Court being in all ways sufficiently advised,}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Rugby Laboratories, Inc. shall have up to and including May 10, 1999, in which to answer, move or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff=s Complaint. No prior extensions of time have been granted to Rugby Laboratories, Inc.}

^4-27-99

⁵⁹²

^{Re: New Hampshire Insurance Company and AIG Europe (UK) Limited, London V. Les Laboratoires Servier and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (98-20770)}

^{Re: Reliance Insurance Company of Illinois V. Les Laboratoires Servier and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.}

^(98-20733)

^{It is HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and through the undersigned attorneys for the parties hereto, that the time for the Plaintiffs and/or Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to respond or object to the Motions of Les Laboratoires Servier to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is extended until 5-21-99}

^4-27-99

⁵⁹³

^{Re: Date of Next Status conference}

^{At a hearing held on April 22, 1999, the court ordered that the next status conference will be held on}

^{May 13, 1999 at 9:30 a.m.}

^4-29-99

⁵⁹⁴

^{Re: Ella Rhone V. American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., a division of American Home Products Corporation, and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (98-20071)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED, that EBERHARD D. GARRISON, of Smith, Jones & Fawer, LLP, be substituted as counsel representing plaintiff Ella Rhone in the above captioned action, replacing Allan Kanner, of Allan Kanner & Associate, P.C. and Jon Andry, of Andry & Andry.}

^{All papers and notices in this action are to be served on Eberhard D. Garrison at the following address:}

^5-10-99

⁵⁹⁵

^{Re: Audrey Robinson and Sterling Robinson V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., et al. (98-20045)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel, that the time for defendant Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company (incorrectly sued herein as Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, a Division of American Home products Corp.), to respond to plaintiffs= motion for a protective order limiting the scope of depositions in the diet drug litigation, is hereby extended for thirty (30) days, through and including June 2, 1999. No such prior extension has been requested and/or granted.}

^5-10-99

⁵⁹⁶

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 14}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the D&R No. 14 of Special Discovery Master (as to Defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Fisons Corporation=s Privilege Log) is AFFIRMED.}

^5-10-99

⁵⁹⁷

^{Re: Twelfth (12th) Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation}

^{Upon consideration of the 12th Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (3/1/99 through 3/31/99), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is hereby GRANTED and it is directed that the parties reimburse the Special Discovery Master for disbursements and compensation for legal fees in the amount of $55, 196.32 for the period from 3/1/99 through 3/31/99, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^5-10-99

⁵⁹⁸

^{Re: John L. Ricketts, IV V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., (98-20142)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of Andrew W. Hutton of Hutton and Hutton to withdraw as counsel for John L. Ricketts, IV (docket #200794), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions. See PTO for conditions.}

^5-10-99

⁵⁹⁹

^{Re: Carol Vonasch, Barbara Carlin V. A.H. Robins Co., Medeva Pharm., Inc. Rugby Group, Rugby Labs, Inc. and Fisons Corp. (9-20194)}

^{The Motion of plaintiffs Carol Vonasch and Barbara Carlin in the above-entitled action for an Order Granting Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint to Name New Defendants Pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= Motion for an Order Granting Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint to Name New Defendants Pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby granted and that the Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed.}

^5-10-99

⁶⁰⁰

^{Re: Judith Bailey and Yale Bailey V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp. Eon Labs Manufacturing Inc., and Rugby Group d/b/a Rugby Laboratories, Inc. (98-20193)}

^{The Motion of plaintiffs Judith Bailey and Yale Bailey in the above-entitled action for an Order Granting Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint to Name New Defendants Pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= Motion for an Order Granting Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint to Name New Defendants Pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby granted and that the Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed.}

^5-10-99

⁶⁰¹

^{Re: Nell Gonzales, et al. V. Medeva, et al. (98-20055)}

^{It is ORDERED that the motion (#200798) of plaintiff to file supplemental brief in support of motion to remand is GRANTED. The reply brief attached to the motion will be deemed filed as of May 17, 1999.}

^5-11-99

⁶⁰²

^{Re: Kathy Darlene Ellis, et ux V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20331)}

^{It is ORDERED that the motion (#200799) of plaintiff to substitute an appropriate party for deceased defendant, Dr. Forest Clay Hume is GRANTED. Counsel shall submit a proposed order naming the substituted party.}

^5-13-99

⁶⁰³

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation no. 15}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the D&R No. 15 of Special Discovery Master (as to Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.=s Inadvertent Production of Privileged Documents) is AFFIRMED.}

^5-13-99

⁶⁰⁴

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 16}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the D&R No. 16 of Special Discovery Master (as to Defendant American Home Products Corporation=s Inadvertent Production of Privileged Documents) is AFFIRMED.}

^5-14-99

⁶⁰⁵

^{Re: Stipulation and Order Regarding Subpoenas Served on Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. and Frank Sasinowski, Esq.}

^{WHEREAS, on August 3, 1998, the firm of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. (AHPM@) was served with a subpoena to produce documents regarding the above-captioned litigation;}

^{WHEREAS, on August 10, 1998, Frank Sasinowski, Esquire (ASasinowski@) a lawyer with HPM was also served with a subpoena to produce documents regarding the above-captioned litigation;}

^{WHEREAS, no documents or other information (including electronically stored information) have been provided by HPM or Sasinowski pursuant to the subpoenas served upon them;}

^{WHEREAS, the PMC in this case has filed a moti9on, and supporting memorandum, to enforce the subpoenas served on HPM and Sasinowski; and}

^{WHEREAS, there have been discussions between counsel as to how the dispute regarding the subpoenas served on HPM and Sasinowski can be resolved without further motion practice;}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows:}

^{1. The PMC will withdraw, without prejudice, its presently pending Motion of the PMC to Enforce Subpoenas Served on Third Parties, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. and Frank Sasinowski, Esquire.}

^{2. Pursuant to the subpoenas served upon them, as clarified by correspondence between counsel, HPM and Sasinowski shall, by June 1, 1999, produce the documents, including documents in redacted form, called for by the subpoenas served upon them and shall serve a privilege log which fully describes all documents withheld from production on the basis of any privilege asserted by HPM and Sasinowski, or any other person or entity claiming a privilege.}

^{3. A substantial production of documents, including redacted documents, called for by the subpoenas served on HPM and Sasinowski shall be made by May 15, 1999.}

^{4. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order changes the respective rights or obligations of HPM and Sasinowski or of the PMC under the subpoenas served upon HPM and Sasinowski.}

^{5. The definition of Adocuments@ contained in the document schedules accompanying the subpoenas served on HPM and Sasinowski applies here.}

^{6. HPM and Sasinowski will produce documents dating back to the beginning of 1994, but that is without prejudice to plaintiffs= opportunity to request documents from earlier time periods, or of HPM and Sasinowski=s opportunity to oppose such a request by plaintiffs.}

^{7. This Stipulation, which will be signed and approved by the Court, will have the same effect as an Order compelling production of the documents and privilege logs identified herein.}

^5-14-99

⁶⁰⁶

^{Re: Hearing held on May 13, 1999}

^{At a hearing held on 5-13-99 the court ruled as follows:}

^{1.) Plaintiffs= motion (#20822) to supplement record for Class Certification in CA 98-20626 is GRANTED. AHP may file a reply on or before May 31, 1999.}

^{2.) PMC=s motion (#200800) to enforce subpoenas served on third parties is Denied as moot. A stipulation will be filed.}

^{3.) The court stays the deposition of Dr. Ewalendo pending ruling on Dr. Ewalenko=s & PMC=s motions (#200823 & #200825) to quash deposition.}

^{4.) Plaintiff Frank=s motion (#200806) for Protective Order in CA 98-20401 is Denied as Moot.}

^{5.) Plaintiff Ricketts motion (#200834) to quash in CA 98-20142 is Denied as Moot.}

^{6.) The next status conference will be held on June 16, 1999 at 10:00 am}

^5-14-99

⁶⁰⁷

^{Re: Anita Blankenship, Betty Davis and Connie Carol Webb V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20603)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff Connie Carol Webb is dismissed with prejudice from the above captioned claim. All parties shall bear their own costs, expenses and attorney fees.}

^5-14-99

⁶⁰⁸

^{Re: Shawn Hawk V. Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (98-20468)}

^{Plaintiff, SHAWN HAWK=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure. Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^5-14-99

⁶⁰⁹

^{Re: Peter Tripple, Vickey Bashful-Smith & Oriana Zill V. Wyeth-Ayerst, et al (98-20333)}

^{Plaintiff, VICKEY BASHFUL-SMITH=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure. Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded}

^5-14-99

⁶¹⁰

^{Re: Peter Tripple, Vickey Bashful-Smith & Oriana Zill V. Wyeth-Ayerst, et al (98-20333)}

^{Plaintiff, ORIANA ZILL=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure. Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^5-14-99

⁶¹¹

^{Re: Peter Tripple, Vickey Bashful-Smith & Oriana Zill V. Wyeth-Ayerst, et al (98-20333)}

^{Plaintiff, PETER TRIPPLE=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure. Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^5-14-99

⁶¹²

^{Re: Edward Baker& Natalie Gardner V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al. (98-20136)}

^{Plaintiff, NATALIE GARDNER=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure. Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^5-14-99

⁶¹³

^{Re: Edward Baker& Natalie Gardner V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al. (98-20136)}

^{Plaintiff, EDWARD BAKER=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure. Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded}

^5-14-99

⁶¹⁴

^{Re: Elizabeth Lopez & Linda Luckett V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, et al. (98-20115)}

^{Plaintiff, ELIZABETH LOPEZ=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure. Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^5-14-99

⁶¹⁵

^{Re: Susan Huckleberry V. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.; and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (98-20381)}

^{Plaintiff, SUSAN HUCKLEBERRY=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure. Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^5-14-99

⁶¹⁶

^{Re: Sharon Boroughf, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20282)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Gary Boroughf in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of All Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home products Corporation, and Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., against whom Gary Boroughf=s claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶¹⁷

^{Re: Michelle Lea Utz V. AH Robins Co., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., & Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., A division of American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20093)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of All Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Medeva Pharm, Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home products Corporation, against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶¹⁸

^{Re: Carol Heimerman; Julianne Feuerborn; and Sha=na R. Smith V. AH Robins Co., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corporation. (98-20378)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs Carol Heimerman and Sha=na R. Smith in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., and SmithKline Beecham Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation}

^5-14-99

⁶¹⁹

^{Re: Jacquelyn J. Myers and Terry N. Myers, V. American Home Products Corp.;Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., Geneva Pharm., Inc., and Qualitest Pharm., Inc., (98-20570)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Terry N. Myers, in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of All Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp.;Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., Geneva Pharm., Inc., and Qualitest Pharm., Inc, against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶²⁰

^{Re: Melnda Hazelton; Kellie Jo Knowles, Valerie Sxtump, and Mary Leon V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., Eon Labs, Inc., Medeva Pharm. Inc., A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc.; and Rugby Labs. (98-20098)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of All Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp.;Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., Eon Labs, Inc., Medeva Pharm. Inc., A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc.; and Rugby Labs against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶²¹

^{Re: Karen Guinn V. American Home Products Corporation (98-20037)}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by Karen Guinn and Defendant American Home Products Corp., by and through their respective attorneys, that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without costs to either party prusuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^5-14-99

⁶²²

^{Re: Janice Price V. American Home Products Corp; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (Division of American Home Products Corp.) Wyeth labs., Inc. and A.H. Robins Co. (98-20516)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products Corp, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Inc., and A.H. Robins Company against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶²³

^{Re: Darcy K. Guintire and Mark J. Nosan V. Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (98-20052)}

^{Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated between all parties hereto, by and through their undersigned counsel, that all claims of Plaintiff Darcy K. Guintire against ALL DEFENDANTS shall be and hereby are dismissed without prejudice.}

^{This dismissal is based upon the following: (1) this Court=s dismissal, in PTO 450, of the class action allegations in this case; (2) Plaintiff=s inability to establish that she ingested any product manufactured by all but two of the listed defendants; and (3) Plaintiff=s desire to dismiss this action in its entirety and, if necessary, to refile at a later date against only those defendants who have been identified as responsible for one or more products actually ingested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff further agrees that, should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded. Each party is to bear its own fees and costs.}

^{All parties to this action that have entered an appearance and that remain in this action have executed this dismissal through their undersigned counsel of record. Inasmuch as this Court, in PTO 395, has previously dismissed with prejudice all claims of Plaintiff Mark J. Nosan, this stipulation, if approved by the Court, will conclude this matter in its entirety.}

^5-14-99

⁶²⁴

^{Re: Lawrence Hickey V. American Home Products Corp. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home) & Interneuron Pharm., Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (98-20577)}

^{This mater coming before the court subsequent to the completion of partial discovery. As a result of such discovery, the parties have acknowledged that it has been determined that Plaintiff neither consumed nor was in any way exposed to Pondimin nor any product of the named Defendants herein.}

^{Therefore, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the parties hereto, by their respective counsel of record, that the entirety of Plaintiff=s Complaint, as against all Defendants, being Defendants American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (Division of American Home), Interneuron Pharm., Inc., and A.H. Robins Co., Inc., shall be dismissed, with prejudice and without costs to any of the parties hereto.}

^5-14-99

⁶²⁵

^{Re: James Goldberg V. A.H. Robins, Inc., et (98-20462)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of James Goldberg in the Complaint against Defendants A.H. Robins Company, Inc., American Home Products Corp., and Wyeth Labs, Inc., in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the following defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Company and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Inc. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation}

^5-14-99

⁶²⁶

^{Re: Nell Gonzales, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20055)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Beth Cook and Brooke Dryer in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay related to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^5-14-99

⁶²⁷

^{Re: Jade T. Battad, Jennifer L.D. Oyama V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. et al.(98-20113)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Gate Pharm, SmithKline Beecham Corp., Seatrace Pharm., Inc., Abana Pharm. Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co. Inc., Ion labs. Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶²⁹

^{Re: Romana Lisa Kaps V. A.H. Robins Incorporated (98-20140)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Co., Inc, against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶³⁰

^{Re: Melba Jean Fincher and Roger Henry Shaw, V. Abana Pharm. Inc., et al. (98-20252)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Jones Pharma, Inc., formerly known as Jones Medical Industries, Inc., as successor to Abana Pharm. Inc., A.H. Robins Co. Inc., Gate Pharm, a Division of Teva Pharm, USA, Inc., Interneuron Pharm. Inc., Ion Pharm., Inc., Medeva Pharm. Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co., Inc, SmithKline Beecham Corp., and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶³¹

^{Re: Carolyn Navratil V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20035)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to named defendant with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being American home Products Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶³²

^{Re: Karen Guinn V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20037)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to named defendant with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being American home Products Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶³³

^{Re: Dallas Ray Blankenship V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20064)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to named defendant with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being A. H. Robins Co. Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp., American Home Products Corp., and Interneuron Pharm. Inc. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation}

^5-14-99

⁶³⁴

^{Re: Ellen Shellhammer and Mark Shellhammer V. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., et al. (98-20016)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Amended Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to named defendant with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A. H. Robins Co. Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp., American Home Products Corp., Gate Pharm., a division of Teva Pharm, USA, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Abana Pharm., Inc., a subsidiary of Jones Medical Industries, Inc., Shire Richwood, Inc., Ion Labs., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., Camall Co., Fisons Corp., Roberts Pharm. Corp., Parmed Pharm. Inc., a subsidiary of Alpharma, Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturers, Inc., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., The Upjohn co. and Rexar Pharmacal, a division of Shire Richwood, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-14-99

⁶³⁵

^{Re: Allean Williams V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20266)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Allean Williams in the Complaint against Defendants American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robin Company, Inc. and Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to named defendant with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., A. H. Robins Co. Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. and Interneuron Pharm. Inc. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation}

^5-17-99

⁶³⁶

^{Re: Status Conference rescheduled}

^{IT IS ORDERED that the status conference scheduled for June 16, 1999 is rescheduled. The conference will be held on Thursday, June 17, 1999 at 10:00 a.m.}

^5-18-99

⁶³⁷

^{Re: Jearld Bayliss V. Wyeth-Ayerst, et al. (98-20133)}

^{Based upon the stipulated motion of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED:}

^{That the case be dismissed without prejudice and without costs to any party. It is further ordered that plaintiff will be required to file any future suits for personal injuries relating to consumption of diet drugs in federal court.}

^5-18-99

⁶³⁸

^{Re: Loretta Mersiovsky, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al. (99-20128)}

^{It is ORDERED that pursuant to the order filed April 21, 1999 by the Hon. Terry r. Means, U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas, the above captioned case is hereby marked DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.}

^5-18-99

⁶³⁹

^{Re: Julia A. Lowenstein V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing. (98-20119)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) that the claims in the class action Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed with prejudice in favor of all named defendants with each side to bear their own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO 450, provided however, that this Order is without prejudice to: any claim for class action medical monitoring relief that any other plaintiff wishes to pursue, in state or federal court; any claims that the individual plaintiff in this case may have or acquired to recover for personal injuries by virtue of any of the conduct alleged in the Complaint; and the right of the plaintiff to participate as an absent class member of any class, including without limitation, a class for medical monitoring relief, and the Interneuron limited fund class action and class action settlement, that may be certified in any state or federal litigation, to the extent the plaintiff meets the class definition and eligibility requirements established by the court granting the class certification. Further, this Order shall have no res judicata effect with respect to the assertion of any personal injury claims in the future, provided however, that the plaintiff further agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants in this matter, against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴⁰

^{Re: Robert Allen Dickerson V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20432)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) that the claims in the class action Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed with prejudice in favor of all named defendants with each side to bear their own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO 450, provided however, that this Order is without prejudice to: any claim for class action medical monitoring relief that any other plaintiff wishes to pursue, in state or federal court; any claims that the individual plaintiff in this case may have or acquired to recover for personal injuries by virtue of any of the conduct alleged in the Complaint; and the right of the plaintiff to participate as an absent class member of any class, including without limitation, a class for medical monitoring relief, and the Interneuron limited fund class action and class action settlement, that may be certified in any state or federal litigation, to the extent the plaintiff meets the class definition and eligibility requirements established by the court granting the class certification. Further, this Order shall have no res judicata effect with respect to the assertion of any personal injury claims in the future, provided however, that the plaintiff further agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation; Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories co.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Inc.; A.H. Robins Company, Inc. and Camall Company against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴¹

^{Re: Jane Doe, Sonia Astaneda, Juianita Fontanez and Cynthia Hudson Fernandez V. Wyeth-Ayerst laboratories Co., a division of American Home Products Corporation, Interneuron Pharmaceutical, Inc., and A.H. Robins Company, Inc., (98-20286)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Beth Cook and Brooke Dryer in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. and A.H. Robins Company, Inc. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay related to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴²

^{Re: Joseph McCarthy V. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab. Division of American Home Products Corp. (98-20137)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Beth Cook and Brooke Dryer in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{The parties note that there is a pending motion for leave to file third party claim against certain Phentermine defendants. However, that motion has not been ruled upon. Therefore, this Stipulation is filed on behalf of the only defendant who has appeared in the above captioned matter, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corp., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴³

^{Re: Wayne R. King, Sr., Connie King, Earl Saulter, Jr., Patricia McGarvey and Everett Bell V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., inc., and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(98-20252)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. and Interneuron, Inc., / Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts.}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴⁴

^{Re: Alan Haenel V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., Interneuron Pharm. Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Gate Pharm., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm, Inc., Camall Labs. Richwood Pharm. Co., Inc.,Ion Laboratories, Inc., and Medeva Pharm. (98-20329)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., Gate Pharm., a division of Teva Pharm., USA Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,SmithKline Beecham corp., Jones Medical Industries, Inc. (formerly known as Abana Pharm., Inc., Camall Labs, Richwood Pharm. Co. Inc., Ion Labs Inc. and Medeva Pharm. Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴⁵

^{Re: Debra A. Bushman, Jules Brodsky and Ilene Leff V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., et al. (98-20058)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., American Home Products Corporation, Gate Pharm., a division of Teva Pharm., USA Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,SmithKline Beecham corp., Jones Medical Industries, Inc. (formerly known as Abana Pharm., Inc., Camall Labs, Richwood Pharm. Co. Inc., Ion Labs Inc. and Medeva Pharm. Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴⁶

^{Re: Christine A. Kehlenbeck V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20132)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴⁷

^{Re: Joseph Charles Canzoneri V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20461)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) that the claims in the class action Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed with prejudice in favor of all named defendants with each side to bear their own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO 450, provided however, that this Order is without prejudice to: any claim for class action medical monitoring relief that any other plaintiff wishes to pursue, in state or federal court; any claims that the individual plaintiff in this case may have or acquired to recover for personal injuries by virtue of any of the conduct alleged in the Complaint; and the right of the plaintiff to participate as an absent class member of any class, including without limitation, a class for medical monitoring relief, and the Interneuron limited fund class action and class action settlement, that may be certified in any state or federal litigation, to the extent the plaintiff meets the class definition and eligibility requirements established by the court granting the class certification. Further, this Order shall have no res judicata effect with respect to the assertion of any personal injury claims in the future, provided however, that the plaintiff further agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Corporation; Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories co.(division of American Home Products Co.) Gate Pharmaceuticals (a division of Teva Pharm) against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴⁸

^{Re: Kathleen Rojas and Doinelle Mulinix, et al. V. Gate Pharm., et al. (98-20452)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Gate Pharm (a division of Teva Pharm USA, Inc), SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm. Inc., Richwood Pharm Co., Inc., ION Labs, Inc., Medeva Pharm. Inc., A.H. Robins Co. Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (A division of American Home Products Corp), and Interneuron Pharm. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety as to both Plaintiff Donelle Mulinix and Plaintiff Kathleen Rojas by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts}

^5-18-99

⁶⁴⁹

^{Re: Amber McMaster V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, inc. and Interneuron Inc., Interneuron Pharm.,Inc (98-20084)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Inc., and Interneuron Inc. / Interneuron Pharm. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts}

^5-18-99

⁶⁵⁰

^{Re: Joseph A. Girouard, Paula Crowley, Dawn Simches and John T. Assetta, Jr. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (division of American Home Products Corp., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm. Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co. Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Ion Laboratories, Inc., and Jones Medical Industries. Inc.(98-20042)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^5-18-99

⁶⁵¹

^{Re: Cheryl McFadden, et al. V. Abana Pharm. Inc., et al. (98-20025)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Cheryl McFadden in the Complaint against Defendants A.H. Robins Co., Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. (Division of American Home Products Corp.) In the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to these defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co. Inc., and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., a Division of American Home Products Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation. All other named defendants have previously joined with Plaintiffs in a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(A), which will be filed with this Court.}

^5-18-99

⁶⁵²

^{Re: Beverly Jean Earley V. Gate Pharm., et al. (98-20084)}

^{Presently before the court is a Motion for a Protective Order filed by the Plaintiff. Initially the Plaintiff sought emergency treatment of this because the time for the deposition had been scheduled for May 13 and 14, 1999.}

^{After reviewing the papers of the moving party, Plaintiff, I called the attorney and advised that I was not going to grant the Protective Order for the reasons stated. Mr. Franco advised the court that the emergency}

^cont...

⁶⁵²

^{was relieved because the parties had scheduled a new date for the deposition. Accordingly, the court=s ruling s that the deposition shall go forward and in keeping with the Colorado precedent set forth by Mr. Franco in his brief there can be and should be reasonable inquiry pertinent to the issues in the case. Apparently the Plaintiff has a somewhat extensive history of medical care and treatment including that for mental or emotional treatment. I agree that the right to inquire into former medical care or treatment is not unbridled and should not be a ground to engage in discovery that is neither necessary nor likely to lead to relevant material for the claim that is before the court. Nevertheless, responsible inquiry into such matters is not only what an attorney is entitled to but indeed what an attorney may be obligated to pursue in the best interests of the representation of his client. The authorities cited to me by the Plaintiff are in accord with this view. Unlike Bond V. District Court, 682 P2d 33, 37 (Colo. 1984) this case does not involve the prospect that discovery will destroy an ongoing course of treatment for the Plaintiff. In Bond there was ongoing, extremely sensitive therapy between an injured child and her parents and professionals had furnished the court with affidavits that suggested that the discovery being sought would, in effect, upset and destroy all the good that had been done and was contemplated to be ongoing regarding treatment for the child. In this instance we simply have a history, albeit likely characterized as a tragic history, of sever emotional and mental circumstances warranting extensive treatment over time. There obviously must be a limit to the inquiry that can be made but counsel for the defendant is entitled to make reasonable inquiry into the past mental and physical care and treatment that the Plaintiff has received that may bear upon her current claim for damages associated with mental injury, distress or other condition that warrants her seeking damages from the defendant.}

^{The Motion for a Protective Order is accordingly DENIED and the inquiry should conform to the standards set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED.}

^5-19-99

⁶⁵³

^{Re: Noreen Chappita and Lisa Colby V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20070)}

^{Upon consideration of defendant Albertson=s, Inc.=s unopposed motion for summary judgment, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. The claims against defendant Albertson=s, Inc. are DISMISSED with prejudice. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Albertson=s, Inc. and against plaintiffs Noren Chappita and Lisa Colby. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), counsel for plaintiffs Noreen Chappita and Lisa Colby is directed to appear before the court on June 17, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-B, 17th Floor, to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.}

^{See PTO for memorandum and Order.}

^5-18-99

⁶⁵⁴

^{Re: Teresa Wray Teaster and Jerry Lee Teaster, Susan C. Byrd and Danny Allen Byrd, Margaret C. Johnson, Iva Jean Gantt and Leon O. Gantt, Sandra G. Shepherd and Bobby N. Shepherd, Adrienne V. Love and Everett Love, Patricia Scott and Roosevelt Scott, Bessie Mae Moorer and Benjamin Moorer, Fonda A. Dotson and Franklin D. Dotson, Jr., Monica Holloway, Charlotte Miller, Diane C. Kelley, Bessie Jane Hunter and Curtis Hunter, Patricia Arnett and Scott Arnett, Susan C. Kelley and John C. Kelley, James D. Ingrum, Sr and Joyce E. Ingrum, Andre T. Brown, Elizabeth G. Smith and James T. Smith, Marian T. Jones and Griffen Jones, Quinette L. Upshaw, Amelia Jean Yow, Julie Ann Williams and Robin T. Williams, Deanna L. Watkins and Randall W. Watkins, Blanca St. Clair and Glen St. Clair, Marjorie Reed and Garland L. Reed, Joan M. Pacheco and Michael W. Pacheco, Marsha L. Rawls, Gladys E. Johnson, Debbie R. Westrope, Judith C. Stack and Charles F. Stack, Christine Davis, Phyliss Y. Dorsey and Bernard E. Dorsey, Betty N. Lane and Jack E. Lane, Mary Miller Neal, Earlene S. Newell and Albert Lee Newell, Cheryl Denise Russell and Darrell Wayne Russell, Anita Lee Shook and Mark Jeffrey Shook, Thelma Elizabth Tinson, Kim Keithline, Lori A. Brunson, Dianna L. Rhodes, Thelma R. Wallace, Inez L. R. Carter, Sara L. Carter and Billy w. Carter, Jr., Darlene Cox, Louise Goodwin, James A. Windell, Bobby Wayne Reynolds, John H. Davis and Lillian M. Davis, Sandra J. Moffitt and Clarude F. Moffitt, Gloria Anna McNeese and Robert H. McNeese, Jr., Lisa Wheelwright, Jose Cuevas, Leisa D. Frierson, Cruz M. Rodriguez, Karin Huey, Rickie Vincent and Billy Ray Vincent, Christy Renee George, Ramandra Page Gilbert, Moystomia Gilbert, Leslie Ann Byram, Louise G. Ferkins, Corina S. Pace, Valene Crumpley and Kenton Crumpley, Lisa A. Brumfield, and Anthony G. Brumfield, Lisa Rappold and Robert Rappold, Primus E. Miller, Ellen Shellhammer and Mark Shellhammer, Carolyn Moore, Steven C. Burdette and Martha burdette, Lahoma Donald and Robert E. Donald, Dallas Ray Blankenship, Arlie R. Bartholomew and Mary Jane Bartholomew, Tina R. Holcomb and Timothy C. Holcomb, Jeanie Cogdill and Barry Cogdill, James Goodman and Shelley Goodman, Cynthia Hurt and William Hurt, Mary Ker and Nick C. Buckholz, Mary Ann Knight and Johnny W. Knight, Vicki Parra and Francisco L. Parra, Fred McCallister and Clementine McCallister, Marjorie C. Rose and James L. Rose, Joni Ridgell and Jerry R. Ridgell, Lauraine Krick, Phyllis Eliason Morse, Debra Denton, Debra Barnett and John T. Barnett, II, Edwin O DeJesus and Brenda G. Young-DeJesus, Sandra J. West and Wayne West, Robert A. Eller}

^{Upon consideration of the Joint Motions and Memoranda of Plaintiffs in the above captioned cases for voluntary dismissal of their Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) Without prejudice and for a Protective Order with respect to any and all depositions in their cases (the AMotions@), the responses of American home Products Corp. (AAHP@) and the PMC and pursuant to the parties= agreement at the court=s Status Conference held April 22, 1999, IT IS ORDERED that said Motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART subject to the following conditions:}

^{1.) The above-captioned civil actions and all claims therein are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety, with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaints, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{2.) Each plaintiff and each defendant named in each of the civil actions being dismissed are bound by the Aset aside@ provisions of PTO 467 in this MDL No. 1203.}

^{3.) In the event that any plaintiff dismissed hereunder decides to initiate a future lawsuit against all or any of the defendants being dismissed by this Order, they may do so in a United States District Court and their claim must be presented so that the United States District Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332.}

^{4.) The foregoing conditions must be satisfied, otherwise the dismissal included herein will be deemed to be Awith prejudice;@}

^{5.) Nothing in this Order will preclude any plaintiff being dismissed hereunder from participating as an absent class member in any state or federal class action wherein some form of relief may be available to a plaintiff as a qualified class member by reason of its association with any of the parties or the diet drugs that are the subject of MDL No. 1203; and}

^{6.) Plaintiffs= Motions are denied, to the extent that defendants have agreed to defer depositions in each of the above-captioned matters where all of the claims asserted by plaintiffs are being dismissed.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^5-19-99

⁶⁵⁵

^{Re: Sylvia DeBruler, et al. V. American Home Products, et al.(98-20074) & Dinah Borros, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20076)}

^{It is hereby stipulated by and between QUICK TRIM CLINIC OF LOUISIANA, INC. defendant in the above-captioned cases, and GERALD J. VALENTINI, ESQ., liaison counsel for the defendant Diet Centers in MDL 1203, that Quick Trim Clinic of LA, Inc., hereby waives any and all services, duties and responsibilities provided by liaison counsel pursuant to PTO 127 and 175, and all other agreements or understandings between the diet center liaison counsel and the individual diet center defendants, thereby relieving liaison counsel of his duties to disseminate information and documents to Quick Trim Clinic of LA, Inc. By executing this Stipulation, Quick Trim Clinic of LA, Inc. waives all Notice with regard to any pleadings, discovery and other documents that are filed in connection with the above-captioned cases or otherwise filed in the Diet Drugs Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1203. Notwithstanding this Stipulation, Quick Trim Clinic of LA recognizes that its responsibility to personally appear before the Court continues, should it ever be called upon to do so.}

^5-19-99

⁶⁵⁶

^{Re: Joni L. H. Ridgell and Jerry R. Ridgell V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20168)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that Defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP. shall be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned matter.}

^5-19-99

⁶⁵⁷

^{Re: Adrianne V. Love & Everett Love V. Gate Pharma (division of Teva Pharm, USA, Inc.) 98-20103}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that Defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP. shall be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned matter.}

^5-19-99

⁶⁵⁸

^{Re: Iva Jean Gantt and Leon O. Gantt V. Gate Pharma (division of Teva Pharm, USA, Inc.) 98-20104}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that Defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP. shall be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned matter.}

5-19-99

659

Re: Dorothy S. Smith V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20105)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties, that Defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP. shall be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned matter.

^5-19-99

⁶⁶⁰

^{Re: Myrtle Burks, Felicia Burnette, Victor Davis, Terri Dean, Sherry Dockins, Brenda Estle, Sharrie Goodwin, Zelma Hampton, Cynthia Holley, Avis Hubbard, Helen Johnson, Sarah Kamerzink, Donna McBroom, Octabia McFarland, Elizabeth Mullins, Marjorie Nolan, Bertha Smith, Jerry Smith, Trinidy Ware, Joanne Wilkins V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20656)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Corp., Camall Company, Ion Laboratories, Inc., Gate Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a division of Teva Pharm., Goldline Labs Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., Qualitest harm., Inc., Rugby Labs, Inc., United Research Labs., Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (a division of American Home Products Co.) against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation. All other named defendants have previously joined with Plaintiffs in a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(A), which will be filed with this Court.}

^5-19-99

⁶⁶¹

^{Re: Eva Bolton, Sandra Bryan, Ruth Camp, Bernice Collins, Easter Dolcy, Linda Ellington Stroud, Micki Ferrell, Wanda Freeman, Deobrah Glasws, Sherbert Glass, Phyllis Horde, Imogene Livingston, Laura Rugel, Kathryn Ruffin, Jack Smith, Barbara Walls, Erletha Ward, Lykesha Robertson Whitehead V. A.H. Robins, et al. (99-20006)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Corp., Camall Company, Ion Laboratories, Inc., Gate Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a division of Teva Pharm., Goldline Labs Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., Qualitest harm., Inc., Rugby Labs, Inc., United Research Labs., Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (a division of American Home Products Co.) against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation. All other named defendants have previously joined with Plaintiffs in a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(A), which will be filed with this Court.}

^5-19-99

⁶⁶²

^{Re: Frank Thomas V. Gate Pharm., et al. (98-20398)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corporation, against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation. All other named defendants have previously joined with Plaintiffs in a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(A), which will be filed with this Court}

^5-19-99

⁶⁶³

^{Re: Al Sherman V. Gate Pharm., (a division of Teva) (98-20399)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corporation, against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation. All other named defendants have previously joined with Plaintiffs in a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41(A), which will be filed with this Court}

^5-19-99

⁶⁶⁴

^{Re: Patricia Schnell, et al. V. American Home Products, Corp., et al. (98-20674)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should he decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270}

^5-19-99

⁶⁶⁵

^{Re: Lynn Frank V. American Home Products Corp., and its division Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories; A.H. Robins Company, Inc., and SmithKline Beecham Corp. (98-20401)}

^{Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby stipulated between all parties hereto, by and through their undersigned attorneys, that plaintiff=s complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to defendant SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP. (ASB@) only. This dismissal is based on plaintiff=s inability to establish that he/she ingested SB=s phentermine product. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.}

^{All parties to this action that have entered an appearance and that remain in this action have executed this stipulation through the undersigned counsel of record. This stipulation does not affect the status of any other party}

^5-19-99

⁶⁶⁶

^{Re: Larry Wood, Bobbie Wood, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of Brian Wood, a minor, and on behalf of all those similarly situated V. A.H. Robins co., et al. (98-20162)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Interneuron Pharm; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.(division of American Home Products Corp.) Gate Pharmaceuticals (division of Teva Pharm, USA, Inc.) Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270}

^5-19-99

⁶⁶⁷

^{Re: Carolyn Kener V. Medeva Pharm Inc., and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (99-20024)}

^{Ordered, Plaintiff Carolyn Kener=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure, Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^5-19-99

⁶⁶⁸

^{Re: Suzanne Gibson V. American Home Products Corp. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co. (division of American Home Products Corp.) And A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (99-20140)}

^{Ordered, Plaintiff Suzanne Gibson=s claims in this action are dismissed, without prejudice, in their entirety against all Defendants, as stipulated by all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug exposure, Plaintiff shall refile the claims in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁶⁹

^{Re: Bobbie J. Oster V. American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, Division of American Home Products Corp. (98-20643)}

^{The motion of plaintiff, Bobbie J. Oster, in the above-entitled action, for an order granting leave to amend Complaint to add punitive damages pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,}

^{Good cause appearing therefore;}

^{It is hereby ordered and decreed that Plaintiff=s Motion to Amend her Complaint to add punitive damages pursuant to Rule 15, Federal rules of Civil Procedure is granted. The Amended Complaint attached to the Motion to Amend is deemed filed for all subsequent purposes.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷⁰

^{Re: Lori Kay Fiebelkorn V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98- )}

^{The motion of plaintiff, Lori K. Fiebelkorn, in the above-entitled action, for an order granting leave to amend Complaint to add punitive damages pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,}

^{Good cause appearing therefore;}

^{It is hereby ordered and decreed that Plaintiff=s Motion to Amend her Complaint to add punitive damages pursuant to Rule 15, Federal rules of Civil Procedure is granted. The Amended Complaint attached to the Motion to Amend is deemed filed for all subsequent purposes.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷¹

^{Re: Laura Buford V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (division of American Home Products Corp.), et al. (99-20050)}

^{Motion having been made by the Plaintiff, Laura Buford, and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff=s tendered Amended Complaint.}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to name Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. as party-defendants to the above-styled action.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷²

^{Re: Valerie McMiller V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (division of American Home Prod.Corp.), et al. (98-20505)}

^{Motion having been made by the Plaintiff, Valerie McMiller, and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff=s tendered Amended Complaint.}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to name MCR/American Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. as party-defendants to the above-styled action.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷³

^{Re: Gwendolyn Milton V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (div. of American Home Products Corp.), et al. (98-20506)}

^{Motion having been made by the Plaintiff, Gwendolyn Milton, and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff=s tendered Amended Complaint.}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to name MCR/American Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. as party-defendants to the above-styled action.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷⁴

^{Re: Elizabeth Strickland V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (div. of American Home Prod. Corp.), et al. (98-20507)}

^{Motion having been made by the Plaintiff, Elizabeth Strickland, and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff=s tendered Amended Complaint.}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to name Fisons Corp. as a party-defendant to the above-styled action.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷⁵

^{Re: Lynette Palmer V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (div. of American Home Products Corp.), et al. (98-20508)}

^{Motion having been made by the Plaintiff, Lynette Palmer, and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff=s tendered Amended Complaint.}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to name Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. as a party-defendant to the above-styled action.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷⁶

^{Re: Marilyn Wood V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (div. of American Home Products Corp.), et al. (98-20717)}

^{Motion having been made by the Plaintiff, Marilyn Wood, and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff=s tendered Amended Complaint.}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to name Fisons Corporation and Rugby Laboratories, Inc. as party-defendants to the above-styled action.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷⁷

^{Re: Doris D. Gardner V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., (div. of American Home Products Corp.), et al. (98-20532)}

^{Motion having been made by the Plaintiff, Doris D. Gardner, and this Court having reviewed Plaintiff=s tendered Amended Complaint.}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to name MCR/American Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. as party-defendants to the above-styled action.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷⁸

^{Re: Earley v. American Home Products, Corp., et al. (98-20084)}

^{Upon consideration of Defendant American Home Products Corporation (AAHPC@) and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company (AWalco@) (collectively herein ADefendants@) Motion for Extension of Time to Designate Responsible Non-Parties Pursuant to C.R.S. 13-21 - 111.5, and all premises considered, and it appearing to this Court that there is good cause to grant said motion.}

^{ORDERED that the Defendants Motion for Extension of Time to Designate Responsible Non-Parties Pursuant to C.R.S. 13-21-111.5 is GRANTED, and it is further ORDERED that deadline for designating responsible non-parties is extended through and including July 2, 1999.}

^5-24-99

⁶⁷⁹

^{Re: Anna Warfield V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20316)}

^{It is ordered that the joint motion, #200864, to be recognized as attorney of record is DENIED as moot.}

^5-25-99

⁶⁸⁰

^{Re: Submission of Pleadings, stipulations, dismissals, etc. are to be submitted through the PMC}

^{Upon consideration of the numerous stipulations for voluntary dismissal and notices of dismissal submitted in MDL No. 1203, IT IS ORDERED that from this date forward, said stipulations and notices are to be submitted through the PMC pursuant to the procedure established for submitting motions set forth in PTO No. 19 (2)(F)(2)(e).}

^{At the present time, any motion filed on behalf of any plaintiff must be filed through the PMC so as to ensure that the motion complies with court requirements. See PTO No. 19(2)(F)(2)(e). However, stipulations for voluntary dismissal and notices of dismissal have been submitted directly to the court. From this date forward, any plaintiff submitting a stipulation for voluntary dismissal or notice of dismissal must submit the same to the PMC for endorsement of one or more of the co-chairs of the PMC attesting to the fact that the stipulation or notice satisfies all applicable requirements of the court. The PMC will then present the stipulations and notices to the court for its review. If the stipulation or notice is approved, the court will file it on the docket as a PTO. SO ORDERED.}

^5-25-99

⁶⁸¹

^{Re: Denial of voluntary dismissal for failure to submit them to the PMC}

^{Upon consideration of the motions and stipulations for voluntary dismissal filed in the civil actions below, IT IS ORDERED THAT:}

^{A. The following motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to submit the motions through the PMC pursuant to PTO No. 19(2)(F)(2)(e) and may be resubmitted in accordance with PTO No.=s 19 & 445:}

^{1. Plaintiffs Abrams for dismissal of Claims in C.A. No. 98-20370 (#200846);}

^{2. Plaintiffs Moreno & Johnson for Reconsideration of PTO No. 133 or Dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20357}

^(#200112);

^{3. Plaintiff Hatcherson, et al. For Dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20653 (document #200745);}

^{4. Plaintiff Pino, et al. For dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20552 (document #200622)}

^{5. Plaintiff Gilmore Joint Motion for Dismissal of Ion Laboratories, Inc. in C.A.No. 98-20145;}

^{6. Plaintiff Olsen, et al. For dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20189 (#200393)}

^{7. Plaintiff Fipp=s Motion for Nonsuit in C.A. No. 99-20009;}

^{8. Plaintiff Herman for Dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20389; and}

^{9. Plaintiff Kerson for dismissal of claims in C.A. No. 98-20048 (#200498) and Motion to withdraw as}

^{Class representative (document #200461).}

^{B. The following motions and stipulations are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for improper form and may be resubmitted in accordance with PTO No. 19, 445 and 680:}

^{10. Plaintiffs Thompson, et al. For dismissal of C.A. No.=s 98-20126, 98-20010, 98-20216 & 98-20046}

^{And for Sanctions (document #200781);}

^{11. Plaintiffs Moreno & Johnson Stipulation of Dismissal in C.A. No. 98-20357;}

^{12. Plaintiff Peck, et al. Motion for Dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20053 (document #200497);}

^{13. Plaintiff Baker Stipulation for Dismissal of Medeva Pharm., Inc. in C.A. No. 98-20136}

^{14. Plaintiff Lampkin for Dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20125 (#200653) and Motion for Protective Order}

^{(Document # 200654);}

^{15. Plaintiff Profeta, et al. For dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20444 (Document #200816)}

^{16. Plaintiff LeBlanc for dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20278 (#200805); and}

^{17. Plaintiff Hazelton Stipulated Notice of Dismissal of Claims in Civil Action Ni, 98-20098.}

^{C. The following motions and stipulations are DENIED AS MOOT:}

^{18. Plaintiff Ruzynski to Withdraw as Class Representative in C.A. 98-20750 (#200226)}

^{19. Plaintiff Huckleberry, et al. For dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20381, 98-20468, 98-20333, 98-20115 &}

^{98-20136 (document #200813).}

^{20. Plaintiffs Ott and Young Stipulation for Dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20148;}

^{21. Plaintiff Karadshi, et al. For dismissal of C.A. No. 98-20041 (#200099) and Motion for Dismissal}

^(#200271);

^{22. Plaintiff Goldstein, et al. For Dismissal of Richwood Pharmaceutical Co. in C.A. No. 98-20066}

^{(Document #200170).}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^5-25-99

⁶⁸²

^{Re: Cindy L. Coats V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Co., et al. (98-20186)}

^{After consideration of the Joint Motion to Dismiss submitted by the Plaintiff and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., by their counsel, and the Affidavit of Plaintiff and certification of counsel required by PTO No. 266, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff=s class action Complaint against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is dismissed without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs.}

^5-25-99

⁶⁸³

^{Re: Elaine Ball, John P. Spilotro, Melissa Tijernina, Maria S. Rodriquez, Mary W. Atkinson and Colleen Merrill, V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (98-20623)}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss the Claim of John Spilotro Without Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and the Response by the American Home Products Corporation Defendants, it is ORDERED that all claims of Plaintiff John P. Spilotro in the above-captioned litigation asserted against American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., SmithKline Beecham, SmithKline Beecham, PLC, Innovative Health Care, Inc., Gate Pharma. (division of Teva) Richwood Pharma Co., Inc., Medeva Pharma, Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Fisons Corp. and Does 1-150 inclusive, the foregoing being all of the Defendants named in the Complaint in this action, be and are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs. This dismissal shall have no effect upon the claims of remaining Plaintiffs in this action.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should Plaintiff John P. Spilotro institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, he shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^5-25-99

⁶⁸⁴

^{Re: Rebecca Ann Ackison,et al. V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (98-20579)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs, Barbara Burgess and Pennie Downey, are dismissed with prejudice from the above captioned claim.}

^5-25-99

⁶⁸⁵

^{Re: Michael H. Goldstein, et al. V. Shire Richwood, Inc., et al. (98-20066)}

^{Michael Goldstein and Barbar Rifon (APlaintiffs@) believe that for personal reasons they can no longer adequately discharge their duties t the putative class of individuals who ingested fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine and/or phentermine (Adiet drug users@) and have expressed their desire to withdraw as putative class representatives, and have their claims dismissed with prejudice.}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed with prejudice as to all named defendants with each pay to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class noticed to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all parties, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties herein below, including American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home Products), A.H. Robins co. Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Shire Richwood, Inc., f/k/a Richwood Pharma., Teva Pharma, USA, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharma., Inc., Ion Labs, Inc., Medeva Pharma., Inc., Seatrace Pharma., Inc. and Fisons Corp. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharma. Inc., does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^5-25-99

⁶⁸⁶

^{Re: Donna Nahoum V. A.H. Robins, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc. and American Home Products Corp., Inc. (98-20451)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the defendant who has appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company and American Home Products Corp. against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270}

^6-1-99

⁶⁸⁷

^{Re: New Hampshire Insurance Company, et al. V. Les Laboratories Servier, et al. (98-20733, 98-20770)}

^{Defendant=s motions for admission pro hac vice of Douglas J. Widmann and Robert P. LoBue (#200880 & #200881) are DENIED. These motions are unnecessary under Rule 6 of te Rule of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.}

^6-1-99

⁶⁸⁸

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 16}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation NO. 16 of Special Discovery Mater (as to Defendant American home Products Corporation=s Inadvertent Production of Privileged Documents) is AFFIRMED.}

^6-1-99

⁶⁸⁹

^{Re: Patricia Schnell, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20674)}

^{It is ORDERED that the motion (#200841) of plaintiff to quash or vacate notice of deposition and subpoena duces tecum and motion to vacate filing deadlines is DENIED.}

^6-1-99

⁶⁹⁰

^{Re: Tommy Aspell V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20096)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of David C. Lee and the firm of LEE, LEE & LEE to withdraw as counsel for the above captioned plaintiff (docket #98-20096),}

^{IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{See PTO for conditions.}

^6-7-99

⁶⁹¹

^{Re: Donna Lee Kitchen V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20618)}

^{Upon consideration of Donna Lee Kitchen=s (APlaintiff@) Motion to Remand or, Alternatively, Amend and Remand (Document #200229) and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.=s and American Home Products Corporation=s (collectively AAHP Defendants@) response thereto, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1. Plaintiff=s motion for remand is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and}

^{2. The alternative motion for leave to amend the Complaint is Granted.}

^{Plaintiff filed this civil action in the San Bernardino County Superior Court in the State of California. On July 7, 1998, defendants, including AHP Defendants, removed this case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. On September 8, 1998, Plaintiffs= civil action was transferred to this court as part of MDL No. 1203. On September 11, 1998, Plaintiff filed her motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction.}

^{Plaintiff argues that this court lacks diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 13321. Plaintiff, a citizen of California, named as defendants AHP Defendants and other pharmaceutical companies. None of the AHP Defendants or pharmaceutical defendants are citizens of California. However, Plaintiff=s Complaint named two ADoe@ defendants, both of which Plaintiff alleges to be health care providers and residents of California. Plaintiff designated the health care providers as Doe defendants in an effort to comply with California Rule of Civil Procedure 364, which provides that:}

^{[n]o action based upon [a] health care provider=s professional negligence may be commenced unless the}

^{defendant has been given at least 90 days prior notice of the intention to commence the action.}

^{Cal. R. Civ. P. 364 (a).}

^{In PTO No. 578, dated April 23, 1999, the court reviewed a similar motion by a plaintiff who named defendant health care providers by fictitious names due to California Rule of Civil Procedure 364. The Court held that amendment of the Complaint to add the health care providers by name satisfies the joinder requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) and does not prejudice defendants, even if the joinder destroys diversity jurisdiction. Thus, upon amendment of the Complaint, remand would be proper under 28 U.S.C. 1447 (e). The court finds that holding applies equally to the case at hand and so the court grants the instant motion under the same terms at PTO No. 578.}

^6-9-99

⁶⁹²

^{Re: Columbia Casualty Company V. Les Laboratories Servier and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. (99-20037)}

^{Order Granting the Motion of Les Laboratories Servier To File Its Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Papers Under Seal.}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion of Les Laboratories Servier to file its motion to dismiss and supporting papers under seal, and any response thereto, it is hereby ordered that said motion is GRANTED.}

^6-10-99

⁶⁹³

^{Re: Malcom Alexander V. Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories Co., et al. (98-20124)}

^{Upon consideration of Plaintiff=s Amended Motion to Amend Complaint (Document #200858), IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED for failure to submit a proposed order with the motion.}

^6-10-99

⁶⁹⁴

^{Re: Gillian Karimi V. Gate Pharm., et al. (98-20499)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Compliant in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., A.H. robins Co., Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co., Inc. and SmithKline Beecham Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^6-10-99

⁶⁹⁵

^{Re: Rosemary Jones V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20375)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Compliant in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., A.H. robins Co., Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Abana Pharm., Inc. and Richwood Pharm. Co., Inc, against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation}

^6-10-99

⁶⁹⁶

^{Re: Cheryl McFadden and Jean Ball V Abana Pharm., et al. (98-20025)}

^{Based on the foregoing Stipulation of the parties hereto, it is hereby ordered that Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Gate Pharmaceuticals, a Division of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., ION Laboratories, Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co., Medeva Pharm., Inc., and SmithKline Beecham Corp., are dismissed from this action in its entirety with prejudice. Each side is to bear its own costs and fees.}

^{See attached Stipulation.}

^6-10-99

⁶⁹⁷

^{Re: Nina K. Weiss V. Wyeth Ayerst Labs. Co., et al. ()98-20046)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Compliant in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^6-10-99

⁶⁹⁸

^{Re: Donna A. Mallot and Sharon Orr V. American Home Products Corporation; Wyeth Ayerst Labs; and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (98-20091)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claim of Sharon Orr, in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, is hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in federal court, in the event federal court jurisdiction can be properly pleaded.}

^6-10-99

⁶⁹⁹

^{Re: Lane B. Griggs and Dana Griggs, V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20525)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, and A.H. Robins Company, Inc., having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law,}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, and A.H. Robins Company, Inc., be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰⁰

^{Re: Maggie M. Chaney, et al. V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al.,}

^{On this day, came on for consideration Plaintiff=s Motion to Substitute Parties, and having considered the evidence and reviewed said motion the Court.}

^{FIND there is cause to grant this motion because one of the plaintiffs, James F. Barthel, has died following the filing of this lawsuit, and is survived by his spouse, Beverly Barthel, who wishes to continue her husband=s lawsuit in his stead. Therefore, the Court}

^{ORDERS that Beveral Barthel is hereby substituted for James F. Barthel, deceased, as one of the plaintiffs in the above styled and numbered case, and that the case proceed in her name without abatement or delay.}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰¹

^{Re: Thirteenth Application by Special Discovery Master for Compensation}

^{Upon consideration of the Thirteenth Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (4-1-99 through 4-30-99), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is hereby GRANTED and it is directed that the parties reimburse the Special Discovery Master for disbursements and compensation for legal fees in the amount of $41, 253. 10 for the period from 4-1-99 through 4-30-99, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰²

^{Re: Kimberly Seipp V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20084)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of Paul J. Schachter, Esq., to withdraw as counsel for Kimberly Seipp, IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{See PTO for conditions.}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰³

^{Re: Shelly Fowler, et al. V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20614)}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion of Paul J. Schachter, Esq., to withdraw as counsel for Shelly Fowler and Sheldon Fowler, IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions.}

^{See PTO for conditions.}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰⁴

^{Re: Amy Williamson, et al. V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., (98-20580)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule, that Amy Williamson, the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, is hereby dismissed, without prejudice as to all named Defendants, and with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff further agrees that, should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries related to diet-drug litigation, said Plaintiff must file any such case in federal court.}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰⁵

^{Re: Rebecca Ann Ackison, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20579)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule, that Amy Williamson, the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, is hereby dismissed, without prejudice as to all named Defendants, and with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Rebecca Ackison; Nellie Adkins; JoAnn Armstrong, Patricia Branham, Louella Both, Barbara Burgess; Opal Byrd; Margaret Collier; Victoria Collins, Rosemary Click; Pennie Downery, Gwen Fetherolf; Vivian Fitzwater; Donald Friley, Amanda Hamilton, Donna Hardin, Jimmy Hardwick, Michelle Hardwick, Gina Hayes, Tony Hensley, John Huffman, Roberta Hulett, Ronnie Johnson, Virginia Kitchen, Matt Mayse, Tonia Neville, Connie Parsons, Debora Ratliff, Pamela Sanders-Worsham, Opal Silvey, Jeanette Springer, Leca Thompson, and Deborah Williams.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiffs further agree that should any above-named Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries related to diet drug litigation, said Plaintiff shall only file any such case in Federal Court.}

^{The parties hereby stipulate that the remaining Plaintiffs in this action are as follows: Carolyn Conley, Verna Hall, Adie Husarick, Juetta Keeton, Belinda Porter, Roger Wright, Theodore Wells, and Carole Slone. The parties further move the Court to substitute Carolyn Conley for Rebecca Ackison in the style of this case.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties here in below, including American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories division of American Home Products, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., King Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Ion Labs, Inc., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., f/k/a Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Fisons Corp., Gate Pharm., Camall Company, Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., Rugby Labs, Inc., Qualitest Pharm., Inc., United Research Labs, Inc., Geneva Pharm., Inc., Rosemont Pharm. Corp., Major Pharm.,Inc. And Duramed Pharm., Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰⁶

^{Re: Anita Blankenship, et al. V. American home Products Corp., et al. (98-20603)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the Plaintiff Anita Blankenship in the above-captioned matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff further agrees that should the above-named Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injures related to diet drug litigation, said Plaintiff must file any such case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties herein below, including American Home Prod., Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home), A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., King Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Ion Labs, Inc., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., f/k/a Abana Pharm., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., d/b/a Medeva Pharm., Fisons Corp., Gate Pharm., Camall Co., Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc., Eon Labs Manuf., Inc., Rugby Labs., Inc., Qualitest Pharm., Inc., United Research Labs., Inc., Geneva Pharm., Inc., Rosemont Pharm., Corp., Major Pharm., Inc., and Duramed Pharm. Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰⁷

^{Re: Margaret Barker, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20576)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED ADJUDGED, and DECREED, pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule, that Margaret Barker, the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, is hereby dismissed, without prejudice as to all named Defendants, and with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff further agrees that should the above-named Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injures related to diet drug litigation, said Plaintiff must file any such case in federal court.}

^{The parties hereby further stipulate that the remaining Plaintiffs in this action are Glen Blevins and Pauline Chaffins. The parties further move the Court to substitute Glenn Blevins for Margaret Barker in the style of this case.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties herein below, including American Home Prod., Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home), A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., King Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Ion Labs, Inc., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., f/k/a Abana Pharm., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., d/b/a Medeva Pharm., Fisons Corp., Gate Pharm., Camall Co., Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc., Eon Labs Manuf., Inc., Rugby Labs., Inc., Qualitest Pharm., Inc., United Research Labs., Inc., Geneva Pharm., Inc., Rosemont Pharm., Corp., Major Pharm., Inc., and Duramed Pharm. Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰⁸

^{Re: Connie Bailey, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20578)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED ADJUDGED, and DECREED, pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule, that the following Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter, is hereby dismissed, without prejudice as to all named Defendants, and with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Connie Bailey, Avonelle Blackburn, Michael Cahal, Tonda Donta, Lela Foreman, Anita LeMaster, Loretta Moore, Rebecca Stephens, and Deana Sullivan}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff further agrees that should the above-named Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injures related to diet drug litigation, said Plaintiff must file any such case in federal court.}

^{The parties hereby further stipulate that the remaining Plaintiffs in this action are Glen Blevins and Pauline Chaffins. The parties further move the Court to substitute Brenda Jarrell for Connie Bailey in the style of this case.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties herein below, including American Home Prod., Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home), A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., King Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Ion Labs, Inc., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., f/k/a Abana Pharm., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., d/b/a Medeva Pharm., Fisons Corp., Gate Pharm., Camall Co., Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc., Eon Labs Manuf., Inc., Rugby Labs., Inc., Qualitest Pharm., Inc., United Research Labs., Inc., Geneva Pharm., Inc., Rosemont Pharm., Corp., Major Pharm., Inc., and Duramed Pharm. Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^6-10-99

⁷⁰⁹

^{Re: Cheryl L. Stowers V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20604)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED ADJUDGED, and DECREED, pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule, that the Plaintiff, Cheryl L. Stowers, in the above-captioned matter, is hereby dismissed, without prejudice as to all named Defendants, and with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff further agrees that should the above-named Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injures related to diet drug litigation, said Plaintiff must file any such case in federal court.}

^{The parties hereby further stipulate that the remaining Plaintiffs in this action are Glen Blevins and Pauline Chaffins. The parties further move the Court to substitute Brenda Jarrell for Connie Bailey in the style of this case.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties herein below, including American Home Prod., Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home), A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., King Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Ion Labs, Inc., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., f/k/a Abana Pharm., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., d/b/a Medeva Pharm., Fisons Corp., Gate Pharm., Camall Co., Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc., Eon Labs Manuf., Inc., Rugby Labs., Inc., Qualitest Pharm., Inc., United Research Labs., Inc., Geneva Pharm., Inc., Rosemont Pharm., Corp., Major Pharm., Inc., and Duramed Pharm. Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^6-10-99

⁷¹⁰

^{Re: Anita Blankenship V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20603)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED ADJUDGED, and DECREED, pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule, that the Plaintiff, Betty Davis, in the above-captioned matter, is hereby dismissed, without prejudice as to all named Defendants, and with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff further agrees that should the above-named Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injures related to diet drug litigation, said Plaintiff must file any such case in federal court.}

^{A separate Motion to Dismiss has been filed for the Plaintiff Connie Carol Webb by her counsel, R. Edison Hill. The parties hereby stipulate that the remaining Plaintiff in this action is Anita Blankenship.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties herein below, including American Home Prod., Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home), A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., King Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Ion Labs, Inc., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., f/k/a Abana Pharm., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., d/b/a Medeva Pharm., Fisons Corp., Gate Pharm., Camall Co., Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc., Eon Labs Manuf., Inc., Rugby Labs., Inc., Qualitest Pharm., Inc., United Research Labs., Inc., Geneva Pharm., Inc., Rosemont Pharm., Corp., Major Pharm., Inc., and Duramed Pharm. Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^6-10-99

⁷¹¹

^{Re: Rebecca Ann Ackison v. American Home Products, et al. (98-20579)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED ADJUDGED, and DECREED, pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule, that the Plaintiff, Betty Davis, in the above-captioned matter, is hereby dismissed, without prejudice as to all named Defendants, and with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{The above-listed Plaintiff further agrees that should the above-named Plaintiff decide to institute a case in the future for personal injures related to diet drug litigation, said Plaintiff must file any such case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared of record, as evidenced by the signatures of counsel for the respective parties herein below, including American Home Prod., Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home), A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., King Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Ion Labs, Inc., Jones Medical Industries, Inc., f/k/a Abana Pharm., Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., d/b/a Medeva Pharm., Fisons Corp., Gate Pharm., Camall Co., Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc., Eon Labs Manuf., Inc., Rugby Labs., Inc., Qualitest Pharm., Inc., United Research Labs., Inc., Geneva Pharm., Inc., Rosemont Pharm., Corp., Major Pharm., Inc., and Duramed Pharm. Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^6-15-99

⁷¹²

^{Re: Ingrid Harder-Tolar V. American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Medeva Pharm. And does 1 through 100. (98-20473)}

^{Ordered: Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein=s Motion to Withdraw as counsel in these proceedings is granted on the grounds that plaintiff Harder-Tolar is entitled to be represented by counsel of her choice, the Law Offices of Arnold Laub. Therefore, the Law Offices of Arnold Laub will remain counsel to plaintiff Ingrid Harder-Tolar and all pleadings in this action should be served upon that firm.}

^6-15-99

⁷¹³

^{Re: Murrel Thelen, an individual and executor for the estate of Michael Thelen V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., et al. (98-20672)}

^{Plaintiff Murrel Thelen, as executor of the estate of Michael Thelen=s Motion to Remand, came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable Louis C. Bechtle. The Court having reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers, and all other papers in this action, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1.) Since the naming of California citizen Lydia Seebach, M.D., as defendant in the Amended Complaint, which the Court allowed plaintiff to file pursuant to PTO No. 578, destroys diversity, this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. 1447 (c). Therefore, plaintiff=s Motion to Remand is GRANTED and this action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for te County of San Francisco which it was originally filed as Case No. 995260.}

^6-15-99

⁷¹⁴

^{Re: Stipulations Regarding Procedure for Establishing the Authenticity of Documents Produced by Defendants, Goldline Laboratories, Inc. and Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.}

^{- Stipulation regarding Procedure for establishing the Authenticity of Documents produced by defendant, SmithKline Beecham Corporation}

^{- Stipulation regarding procedure for establishing the authenticity of Documents produced by defendants, Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Fisons Corporation.}

^{-Stipulation Regarding procedure for establishing the authenticity of Documents produced by American Home Products Corporation Defendants}

^{Also includes ones for Gate Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (A division of Teva) , Rugby Laboratories, Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shire Richwood, Inc. , United Research Laboratories, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ion Labs,}

^{Upon consideration of the attached Stipulations regarding the procedure for establishing the authenticity of documents produced by defendants, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:}

^{1. Each of the Stipulations are approved by the Court; and}

^{2. The parties shall comply with the terms of each Stipulations.}

^6-15-99

⁷¹⁵

^{Re: Marie A. Johnson V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20118) and Emily Bogin V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20678)}

^{Upon consideration of plaintiffs Marie Johnson=s (AJohnson@) and Emily Bogin=s (ABogin@) (collectively APlaintiffs@) motions for expedited remand (Documents #200826 & #200827) and defendant American Home Products Corporation=s (AAHP@) responses thereto, IT IS ORDERED that said motions are DENIED.}

^{Plaintiffs request that the court enter a PTO suggesting the Judicial Panel on MDL that their respective civil actions be remanded to the appropriate transferor court. Plaintiffs state that they have Primary Pulmonary Hypertension and are terminally ill. Both claim that discovery in their cases is close to completion. AHP has filed a response challenging Plaintiffs contention that discovery is close to completion. Specifically, AHP state that Anumerous treating physicians and other fact witnesses must be questioned in both these cases before they can be remanded to their respective transferor courts.@ (AHP Resp. at 4)}

^{These cases have been consolidated before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407. That statute authorizes transfer for coordination or consolidation of PTO proceedings, which means completion of pretrial proceedings in the transferee court. The simple issue before the court is whether or not pretrial proceedings have been completed in these cases. Based upon the opposition by AHP, they have not. What must be kept in mind regarding the expedited remand procedure established in Special Discovery Master Memo. Nos. 8, 12 and 13 is that the goal is to complete the pretrial proceedings on an earlier basis through extra effort by the parties and their attorneys. The goal is not the elimination, abbreviation or postponement of pretrial procedures that any party is entitled to take in furtherance of a claim or defense. Under those special procedures, once all pretrial proceedings are completed on an expedited basis, the cases may then be suggested for remand and returned to the transferor courts and listed for trial.}

^{The court finds that the just and efficient administration of the above civil actions would not be facilitated by a premature suggestion of remand as is requested by Plaintiffs= motions. AHP=s MDL-wide and case-specific discovery is still proceeding under the deadlines established by the court. Because the pretrial}

^cont...

⁷¹⁵

^{proceedings are not complete, any remaining discovery would have to be completed by the transferor court upon remand. Thus, any gains made by remanding these cases prior to the conclusion of discovery would be illusory, particularly when these cases are already scheduled for suggestion of remand within a few months under the established expedited remand system for those plaintiffs with a serious diagnosed medical condition, including Primary Pulmonary Hypertension. See Special Master Memorandum No. 8 (establishing procedure for Remand Group A); Special Master Memorandums Nos. 12 & 13 (establishing procedure Remand Group B). Specifically, Johnson is listed in remand Group A, scheduled for suggestion of remand on September 1, 1999. Bogin is listed in Remand Group B, scheduled for suggestion of remand on October 1, 1999. The deadlines for these expedited remand groups provide those plaintiffs with serious medical conditions a priority in the completion of their discovery. However, the deadlines also provide the defendants with adequate and reasonable time to complete their MDL-wide and case-specific discovery. The court could envision a circumstance when the plaintiffs and the defendants in a particular case either agree, or are in no position to disagree, that all pretrial proceedings are completed. In such a case, the court would consider an individual expedited remand if the plaintiff fit the category of those having the medical conditions previously described in the expedited remand procedure. According to AHP=s assertions regarding the state of discovery, altering the established dates for suggestion of remand for Plaintiffs in these cases would interfere with the expedited remand system in place and would hinder AHP=s ongoing discovery in these civil actions. Thus, the court denies Plaintiffs= motions for remand.}

^6-15-99

⁷¹⁶

^{Re: Julia R. Madole V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al. (98-20415)}

^{Plaintiffs= motion to enroll additional counsel and designate lead counsel 9#200900) is DENIED. This motion is is unnecessary under Rule 6 of the Rules of procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.}

^6-15-99

⁷¹⁷

^{Re: Earley V. American Home Products, Corporation, et al. (98-20084)}

^{Upon consideration of Defendants American Home Products Corporation (AAHPC@) and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. (AWALCO@) (collectively herein ADefendants@) Unopposed Amended Motion for Extension of Time to Designate Responsible Non-Parties Pursuant to C.R.C. 13-21 - 111.5, and all premises considered, and it appearing to this Court that there is good cause to grant said motion}

^{ORDERED that the Defendants Unopposed Amended Motion for Extension of Time to Designate Responsible Non-Parties Pursuant to C.R.C. 13-21 - 111.5 is GRANTED; and it is further}

^{ORDERED that deadline for designating responsible non-parties is extended through and including July 22, 1999.}

^6-17-99

⁷¹⁸

^{Re: Order Directing Issuance of a Letter Rogatory}

^{This matter having come for a hearing upon the motion of defendant American Home Products Corporation for a Letter Rogatory for Dr. Lucien Abenhaim and/or a custodian of records to appear and produce documents for inspection and copying and it appearing that such a letter is appropriate,}

^{NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that the Clerk of the Court shall issue the Letter Rogatory in the form attached as Exhibit 1 to this Order.}

^6-17-99

⁷¹⁹

^{Re: Sally Ann Grant and Paul Grant V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, a Division of Teva Pharm, et al. (98-20280)}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED and the following defendants are dismissed from this action without prejudice.}

^{Gate Pharm., Inc., (div. Of Teva Pharm., U.S.A., Inc.) Medeva Pharm., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Eon Labs Manuf., Inc., United Research Labs, Inc., Fisons Corp., Rugby Labs., Inc.}

^6-18-99

⁷²⁰

^{Re: Heahter Mason-Clark V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20007) & Gertraud Ideman V. American Home Prod. Corp., et al. (99-20008)}

^{Upon consideration of plaintiffs Heather Mason-Clark=s and Gertraud Ideman=s motions for remand and costs and defendants American Home Products Corporation=s responses thereto, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1. The motions for remand are GRANTED; and}

^{2. The motions for costs are DENIED.}

^6-21-99

⁷²¹

^{Re: Anna Warfield V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20316)}

^{It is ORDERED that the joint motion to be recognized as attorney of record is DENIED. This motion is not necessary under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.}

^6-21-99

⁷²²

^{Re: Hearing held on June 17, 1999}

^{The court ruled as follows:}

^{1. Plaintiff Robins=s motion (#200796) for a protective order limiting the scope of depositions in CA 98-20045 is DENIED for failure to prosecute.}

^{2. A hearing is scheduled on r. Ewalenko & PMC=s motion to quash deposition for Thursday, June 24, 1999 at 10:30 a.m.}

^{3. Mr. Thistle will advise the court as to which class action plaintiff Aserinsky will fit into in the Federal Forum.}

^{4. Counsel for plaintiff failed to appear for a show cause hearing scheduled for today on Defendant Albertson=s motion for summary judgment. Defendant Albertson=s shall file a petition setting forth the costs incurred in this case. Counsel for plaintiff shall pay the Clerk of Court 4500.00 within 15 days.}

^{5. The next status conference will be held on July 27, 1999 at 10:15 a.m.}

^6-21-99

⁷²³

^{Re: Lisa Petrou and Catherine Baxter V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, et al. (98-20072)}

^{Upon consideration of plaintiffs Lisa Petrou=s and Catherine Baxter=s (APlaintiffs@) Motion to Remand, as filed in the transferor court, and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.=s, Interneuron Pharm., Inc.=s, A.H. robins Co., Inc.=s, Gate Pharm., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Medeva Pharm., Inc.=s, Ion Labs, Inc.=s, and Abana Pharm., Inc.=s (ADefendants@) responses thereto, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.}

^{On September 30, 1997, Plaintiffs filed their class action in the Thirty Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Bernard, State of LA. On October 30, 1997, defendants A.H. Robbins Co., Inc. and Wyueth-Ayerst Laboratories Company filed a timely notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of LA. On 1-23-99, plaintiffs= civil action was transferred to this court as part of the MDL 1`203. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion before the transferor court and the court received a copy of that motion on 6-1-98. On 2-4-99, the court issued PTO No. 450. PTO No. 450 dismissed Plaintiff=s class action allegations, but permitted Plaintiffs to pursue their claims as individual civil actions.}

^{A.H. Robbins Company, Inc.=s and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Company=s notice of removal was based upon complete diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the parties named in this action meet the diversity of citizenship requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). Instead, Plaintiffs contend that their claims do not reach the $75,000.00 jurisdictional amount under that statute.}

^{The amount in controversy is determined at the time of removal by looking at the allegations contained in the complaint. Meritcare Inc. V. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 166 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 1999); Laughlin V. Kmart Corp., 50 F. 3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995). When a complaint does not demand a precise monetary amount, the district court must make an independent inquiry into the value of the claims alleged. Angus V. Shiley, 989 F.2d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 1993). If the court determines to a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional amount, it must deny the motion to remand. Id. (Affirming district court finding that jurisdictional amount existed because Aa reasonable jury likely could have valued [plaintiff=s] losses at over $50,000); see also Meritcare, 166 F.3d at 217; International Fleet Auto Sales V. National Auto Credit, No. 97-1675, 1999 WL 95258, at *3 n.7 (E.D. pa. Feb. 22, 1999) (NOTING Third Circuit has joined Second and Seventh Circuits in holding that the legal certainty/reasonable probability standard applies to both removed cases and cases filed in federal court). The party seeking to invode the federal court=s jurisdiction has the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is satisfied. See Russ V. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 961 F. supp. 808, 810 (E.D. Pa 1997) (stating A[o]n a [plaintiff=s] motion to remand, the burden is on the defendants to establish federal court jurisdiction.@)}

^{In their Notice of Removal, A.H. Robbins Company, Inc. and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company relied on the Complaint=s allegations to establish the jurisdictional amount. Plaintiffs= Complaint alleges that their claims do not exceed $50,000.00. (Compl. 67) However, Plaintiffs do not demand judgment for a specific amount of damages and Plaintiffs have cited no Louisiana state law that limits a plaintiff=s recovery to the amount claimed in the complaint. In this instance, the court will look to the factual allegations alleged in the}

^cont...

⁷²³

^{complaint to determine the jurisdictional amount, rather than Plaintiffs= estimate of damages. See Angus, 989 F.2d at 146 n.4 (stating A[i]t is possible that the determination of whether remand would be appropriate when damages of $50,000 or less are demanded would depend in part on whether under state law the plaintiff is limited to the damages claimed.@); De Aguilar V. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1409-10 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding Aif a defendant can show that the amount, the plaintiff must be able to show that, as a matter of law, it is certain that he will not be able to recover more than the damages for which he has prayed in the state court complaint.@); See also Feldman V. New York Life Ins. Co. No. 97-4684, 1998 WL 94800, at *5-7 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 0-4, 1998) (finding plaintiffs= statement that their damages did not exceed $75,000 was not controlling, citing Angus and De Aguilar).}

^{Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of ingesting diet drugs, Lisa Petrou has Aexperienced numerous injuries which include headaches, anxiety, and nausea@ and that Catherine Baxter Ahas experienced numerous injuries which include headaches, nausea, and swelling of her extremities.@ (Compl. 4 & 5) The Complaint also states that APlaintiffs have been injured in health, strength and activity and suffered injuries to body and mind, the exact nature and extent of which are not known at this time.@ (Compl. 44 & 52) Plaintiffs also allege that they have incurred reasonable health care expenses and Amay in the future be required to obtain medical and/or hospital care, attention and services in an amount as yet unascertained.@ (Compl. 44 & 45.) Plaintiffs allege that the diet drugs at issue cause fatal and debilitating illnesses and that Defendants= failure to warn of such dangers Awas a proximate cause of Plaintiffs= injuries which they suffered and will continue to suffer . . ..@ (Compl. 65.) Plaintiffs bring claims for : (1) strict product liability; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty; (4) negligence; and (5) medical monitoring and equitable relief. Plaintiffs request legal and equitable relief including medical monitoring relief, refunds, medical expenses and compensatory and other damages. Plaintiffs= claims include not only damages and medical expenses related to their current injuries but, under a fair reading of the Complaint, also for any other injury which the medical monitoring would uncover. The court finds to a reasonable probability that the medical monitoring and refund claims, combined with the claims for damages for present injuries and possible serious future injury, meet the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00 set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1332. Thus, the court finds the jurisdictional amount is satisfied and it denies the Motion to Remand.}

^6-23-99

⁷²⁴

^{Re: Robert Patro V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20138)}

^{Hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw Appearance of Michael T. Ward is Granted.}

^6-23-99

⁷²⁵

^{Re: Columbia Casualty Company V. Les Laboratories Servier, et al. (98-20037)}

^{Defendant Les Laboratories Servier=s motion (#200917 and #200918) for admission pro hac vice are DENIED. These motions are not necessary under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.}

^6-23-99

⁷²⁶

^{Re: Carol R. Meyer, et al. V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (99-20063)}

^{On this day came Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, of Smith, Jones and Fawer, L.L.P , and moved this court to substitute IKE F. Hawkins, III, at 13541 Tiger Bend Road, Baton Rouge, LA 708917, as counsel representing plaintiffs Carol L. Meyer, et al., in the above captioned action.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERED and GRANTS the requested substitution of IKE F. HAWKINS, III for Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings correspondence, and certificates of service.}

^6-23-99

⁷²⁷

^{Re: Bonnie Hebert, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20068)}

^{On this day came Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, of Smith, Jones and Fawer, L.L.P , and moved this court to substitute IKE F. Hawkins, III, at 13541 Tiger Bend Road, Baton Rouge, LA 708917, as counsel representing plaintiffs Bonnie Hebert, et al., in the above captioned action.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERED and GRANTS the requested substitution of IKE F. HAWKINS, III for Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings correspondence, and certificates of service.}

^6-23-99

⁷²⁸

^{Re: Ruth Addison, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20079)}

^{On this day came Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, of Smith, Jones and Fawer, L.L.P , and moved this court to substitute IKE F. Hawkins, III, at 13541 Tiger Bend Road, Baton Rouge, LA 708917, as counsel representing plaintiffs Ruth Addison, et al., in the above captioned action.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERED and GRANTS the requested substitution of IKE F. HAWKINS, III for Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings correspondence, and certificates of service.}

^6-23-99

⁷²⁹

^{Re: Marie Hebert, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20098)}

^{On this day came Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, of Smith, Jones and Fawer, L.L.P , and moved this court to substitute IKE F. Hawkins, III, at 13541 Tiger Bend Road, Baton Rouge, LA 708917, as counsel representing plaintiffs Marie Hebert, et al., in the above captioned action.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERED and GRANTS the requested substitution of IKE F. HAWKINS, III for Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings correspondence, and certificates of service.}

^6-23-99

⁷³⁰

^{Re: Betty Vessel, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20096)}

^{On this day came Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, of Smith, Jones and Fawer, L.L.P , and moved this court to substitute IKE F. Hawkins, III, at 13541 Tiger Bend Road, Baton Rouge, LA 708917, as counsel representing plaintiffs Betty Vessel, et al., in the above captioned action.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERED and GRANTS the requested substitution of IKE F. HAWKINS, III for Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings correspondence, and certificates of service.}

^6-23-99

⁷³¹

^{Re: Lynell Johnson, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20099)}

^{On this day came Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, of Smith, Jones and Fawer, L.L.P , and moved this court to substitute IKE F. Hawkins, III, at 13541 Tiger Bend Road, Baton Rouge, LA 708917, as counsel representing plaintiffs Carol L. Meyer, et al., in the above captioned action.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERED and GRANTS the requested substitution of IKE F. HAWKINS, III for Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings correspondence, and certificates of service.}

^6-23-99

⁷³²

^{Re: Bill Brister, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20097)}

^{On this day came Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, of Smith, Jones and Fawer, L.L.P , and moved this court to substitute IKE F. Hawkins, III, at 13541 Tiger Bend Road, Baton Rouge, LA 708917, as counsel representing plaintiffs Bill Brister, et al., in the above captioned action.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERED and GRANTS the requested substitution of IKE F. HAWKINS, III for Randall A. Smith, L. Tiffany Hawkins, Gladstone N. Jones, III, and Joseph H. Hart, IV, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings correspondence, and certificates of service.}

^6-23-99

⁷³³

^{Re: Withdrawal of counsel for Camall Company in Utah cases}

^{The motion for leave as counsel for Camall Company in Utah Cases having been considered by the Court and no opposition having been filed to said Motion, now therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: J. Anthony Eyre, Michael F. Skolnick with the firm of Kipp and Christian, P.C. and Gary G. Cutler of the firm Margolis Edelstein are hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Camall Company n the Utah cases which are as follows:}

^{Valence Crumpley, et al., Kendra Sorenson, et al., Maria E. Escobar-Manthie, Loraine D. Hutchings, Susan G. Mitchell, et al., Phyllis Eliason Morse, Judy C. Velarde, Shirley Robertson, Corina S. Pace, Ted Oscarson, et al., Arlene D. Armantrout, Julie Mattinson, Karen E. Clarke, et al. , Diane C. Kelley, Lani Lee Fotheringham, Lanore Blackham, et al., Sue I. Ward, Louise G. Ferkins, Terri Ann Carpenter, Leslie Ann Byram.}

^6-23-99

⁷³⁴

^{Re: Jacqueline Profeta, Michael Lane, Anita Haas, Doris Woodmansee, and Virginia Warrington V. American Home Products Corp. (98-20444}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:}

^{1. That plaintiffs Jacqueline Profeta, Michael Lane, Anita Haas, Doris Woodmansee, and Virginia Warrington be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(i), with each party to bear their own costs and fees. Should plaintiffs decide to file again at a future date, they will do so in federal court.}

^6-23-99

⁷³⁵

^{Re: Tina Arnold, Lana Harris, JoannePakbaz V. American Home Products Corp.,Wyeth Ayerst Labs. Inc., and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. (98-20032)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Compliant in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff shall file said case in the United States District Court and the claim must be presented so that the U.S. D.C. has subject mater jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Inc. and Interneuron Pharm. Inc. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270. This Stipulation may be signed in counter-parts.}

^6-23-99

⁷³⁶

^{Re: Joyce Lynn Baxter V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (divison of American Home Products Corp.), et al. (98-20524)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Compliant in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff must file said case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing, Inc. and Fisons Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^6-23-99

⁷³⁷

^{Re: Sheila J. Seals V. American Home Products Corp, et al. (98-20569)}

^{It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the attorneys for the undersigned parties that defendant MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. shall be dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 (A)(1)(II). In compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 (a)(1)(ii), this stipulation of dismissal has been signed by attorneys for all the parties who have appeared in this case, namely: SHEILA J. SEALS; AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION; WYETH-AYERST LABORATORIES; A.H. ROBINS CO., GATE PHARMACEUTICALS; and MEDEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. This stipulation of dismissal pertains to the dismissal of all claims against Defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals only and does not dismiss, in whole or in part, any claims against any of the other parties.}

^6-24-99

⁷³⁸

^{Re: Richard Winn, Sr. and Alice Albrechinski V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20488)}

^{Upon consideration of plaintiffs Richard Winn=s and Alice Albrechinski=s motion for remand and defendants American Home Products Corporation=s, Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.=s, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, a Division of American Home Products Corporation=s and A.H. Robins Company, Inc.=s response thereto, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE..}

^{Attached is Memorandum and Order.}

^6-25-99

⁷³⁹

^{Re: Loretta Mersiovsky, et al. V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (99-20128)}

^{Upon consideration of the unopposed motion of defendant American Home Products Corporation to vacate PTO No. 638 and Set aside Dismissal, and the opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that Defendants= Motion be and is hereby GRANTED, that PTO No. 638 be and is hereby VACATED, and that the dismissal of the above-captioned civil action be and is hereby SET ASIDE.}

^6-25-99

⁷⁴⁰

^{Re: Sylvania DeBruler, Victoria Cotton and others V. American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Quick Trim Weight Loss Clinic and Dr. George McCaskey (98-20074)}

^{It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed in the matter entitled ASylvia Debruler, Victoria Cotton and Others versus American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al.@ C.A. No. 98-20074 on the docket of the United States District Court, E.D. of PA, that any and all claims of plaintiffs against defendant Dr. George McCaskey, be and the same are hereby dismissed without prejudice, each party to bear their respective costs, and specifically reserving to plaintiffs their rights to proceed against the other defendants herein and any other responsible party.}

^6-25-99

⁷⁴¹

^{Re: James E. Carter V. Abana Pharm., Inc. et al. (99-20054)}

^{Proposed order granting motion to amend complaint to name a new defendant pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^{The motion of plaintiff James Carter in the above-entitled action for an order granting leave to amend complaint to Name a New Defendant Pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s Motion for An Order Granting Leave to Amend Complaint to Name a New Defendant Pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is hereby granted and that the First Amended Complaint is deemed filed.}

^6-25-99

⁷⁴²

^{Re: Kathy Smith V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20575)}

^{Presently before the court is a Motion of Marda W. Sydnor, attorney for the Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to withdraw by reason of the entry of an appearance on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. by attorneys from the firm of Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. The Motion is GRANTED. SO ORDERED,.}

^6-25-99

⁷⁴³

^{Re: Malcolm Alexander V. Wyeth-Ayerst laboratories Co., American Home Prod., Interneuron Pharm., Inc. and A.H. Robins, Inc. (98-20124)}

^{Presently before the court is a Motion of the Plaintiff to add another, Dr. James Mace, to his Complaint. According to the Motion the present Defendants and the Plaintiff agree that the Defendant can be added if the diversity will not thereby be destroyed.}

^{A reading of the Motion and the supporting documents suggests that the Plaintiff and the proposed new Defendant, Dr. James Mace, are both citizens of the State of Mississippi and hence diversity would be destroyed by the addition.}

^{The motion is DENIED.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁴⁴

^{Re: Carol and Armond Aserinsky V. Wyeth-Laboratories, Inc., et al. (99-20078)}

^{Upon consideration of plaintiffs Carol and Armond Aserinsky=s motion for remand and defendants Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.=s and Wyeth laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation=s response thereto, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁴⁵

^{Re: Darlene Coleman V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20689)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁴⁶

^{Re: Linda DeLuca V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20688)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁴⁷

^{Re: Pamela Anderson and Danny Anderson V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Camall Company, Rugby Laboratories, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (98-20727)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁴⁸

^{Re: Wanda Beddingfield V. A.H. Robins, Company, et al. (98-20741)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁴⁹

^{Re: Gladys Brimhall and tom Brimhall V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20742)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁵⁰

^{Re: Maudie Laney V. American Home Products; et al. (98-20687)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁵¹

^{Re: Eva Mae Burris and Millard Burris V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20048)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁵²

^{Re: Lisa L. Toliver V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20602)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁵³

^{Re: Frankie H. Hicks and Delphus Hicks V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al. (98-20392)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, a A.H. Robins Company, Inc., having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁵⁴

^{Re: Teri Feaker V. American Home Products, Corp., et al. (98-20690)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁵⁵

^{Re: Pamela Griph, Agnes Anderson, Glenda Swanner, Karen Nicely, Violet McKinley,Regina Stiles, Rickie Fox, Vicki Baker, Bill Brye, Curtis Anderson and other similarly situated V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst labs Co., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., (98-20095)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁵⁶

^{Re: Tommy Aspell V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20096)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, a A.H. Robins company, Inc. having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁵⁷

^{Re: Melinda Johnson V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, A division of Teva (99-20122)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^6-29-99

⁷⁵⁸

^{Re: Kathy Darlene Ellis and husband, Paul Ellis V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20331)}

^{Defendants, American Home Products, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, A.H. Robins Company, Inc. having moved for an Order for permission to file an Amended Answer identifying or describing other alleged tort feasors who should share fault, as required by Tennessee law.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that defendants, American Home Products Corporation, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, be, and they hereby are, allowed to file an Amended Answer which was lodged with the Clerk contemporaneous with their filing a Motion to be allowed to amend.}

^7-1-99

⁷⁵⁹

^{Re: Hearing scheduled on the Appeal of American Home Products to Decision and Recommendation No. 22}

^{It is ordered that a hearing is scheduled on the Appeal of American Home Products to Special Master Decision and Recommendation No. 22. The hearing will be held on July 20, 1999 at 4:00 pm.}

^7-1-99

⁷⁶⁰

^{Re: Cynthia A. Foy, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20078)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion (#200914) of Katie W. Freiberger and the law offices of Wood & Freiberger, to withdraw as counsel for Alpha Clinic, Inc., IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{(See PTO for conditions)}

^7-1-99

⁷⁶¹

^{Re: Jan Ingram V. American Home Proudcts Corp.,et al. (99-20521)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of Steven D. Wolf and the law firm of Haputman, O=Brien, Wolf & Lathrop, P.C., to withdraw as counsel for Jan Ingam, (docket # 200923), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{See PTO for conditions.}

^7-1-99

⁷⁶²

^{Re: Gloriatene Morrison V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (98-20651)}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion of Steven D. Wolf and the law firm of Haputman, O=Brien, Wolf and Lathrop, P.C. to withdraw as counsel for Gloriatene Morrison, (docket #200923), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions. See PTO for conditions.}

^7-6-99

⁷⁶³

^{Re: Columbia Casualty Company V. Les Laboratoires Servier, et al. (99-20037)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between plaintiff Columbia Casualty Company and defendant Les Laboratories Servier (ADefendant@), through their respective attorneys, that the time for plaintiff to respond to Defendant=s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, dated June 7, 1999, is extended up to and including July 1, 1999.}

^7-8-99

⁷⁶⁴

^{Re: Joe B. Maira and Maria Maira V. A.H. Robins company, Inc., et al. (98-20147)}

^{On this day came Stuart Bernstein, Costello, Shea and Gaffney LLP, and moved this Court to withdraw CFI of New Jersey=s Motion to Change Attorneys dated June 17, 1999. For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERED and GRANTS the requested withdrawal.}

^{The clerk is directed to send certified copies of this order to all counsel of record.}

^7-8-99

⁷⁶⁵

^{Re: Angela Migliozzi & Joseph Migliozzi V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., a division of American Home Products Corp. and CFI Corp., American Home Products Corp., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (98-20435)}

^{On this day came Stuate Bernstein, Costello, Shea & Gaffney LLP, and moved this Court to withdraw Central Fill Inc=s Motion to change Attorneys dated June 17, 1999.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERS and GRANTS the requested withdrawal.}

^{The clerk is directed to send certified copies of this Order to all counsel of record.}

^7-8-99

⁷⁶⁶

^{Re: Kathy Smith V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20575)}

^{It is ORDERED that the unopposed motion of defendant Walmart Stores, Inc. to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment is GRANTED.}

^7-13-99

⁷⁶⁷

^{Re: Joe B. Maira and Maria Maira V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc, American Home Products Corporation, CFI Corporation, Monico Drugs, Inc., and Shahed A. Quyyumi, M.D. (98-20147)}

^{On this day came Stuart Bernstein, Costello, Shea & Gaffney LLP, and moved this Court to substitute Silverstein and Hurwitz, P.C., as counsel for CFI Corporation of New Jersey.}

^{For good cause shown the Court hereby ORDERS and GRANTS the requested substitution of Costello, Shea & Gaffney LLP for Silverstein & Hurwitz, and further directs all parties and their respective counsel to reflect this change in all future pleadings, correspondence, and certificates of service.}

^7-15-99

⁷⁶⁸

^{Re: Diane Hammock V. A.H. Robins, et al. (99-20171)}

^{It is ORDERED that the above captioned case is hereby marked DISMISSED because it is a duplicate of 99-20214}

^7-16-99

⁷⁶⁹

^{Re: Maggie M. Chaney, et al. V. Gate Pharmaceuticals, et al. (98-20478)}

^{Upon consideration of plaintiff Maggie M. Chaney=s, Betty J. Williams=, Leroy T. Trotter=s, John E. Reed=s, james F. Barthel=s, Virginia Ann Hopps=, Virginia Hasselll=s, Evelyn Turner=s, Deborah Saunders=, Catherine Herman=s and Mary C. Smith=s motion to remand, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure 21, Plaintiffs James F. Barthel, Virginia Ann Hopps, Virginia Hassell, Evelyn turner, Deborah Saunders and Catherine herman are DROPPED from this civil action as follows}

^{(1) Dropped plaintiffs have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file a new complaint, in a proper venue, containing the claims that they pled in their original complaints.}

^{(2) Dropped plaintiffs shall not name new or additional defendants in any complaints filed pursuant to this Order, but a plaintiff may name fewer defendants;}

^{(3) When a new complaint is filed, if filed in federal court, plaintiff=s counsel shall notify the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (AJPML@) that the new civil action is a potential tag-along action and has been filed. Plaintiff=s counsel shall also forward to the JPML a copy of both the newly filed complaint and the docket sheet for each action;}

^{(4) Defendants shall not file any notices of opposition with the Clerk of the JPML with regard to the JPML=s entry of a conditional transfer order to this district for inclusion in MDL No. 1203 for any of the potential tag-along actions filed pursuant to this Order;}

^{(5) Dropped plaintiffs are deemed to have ongoing MDL No. 1203 actions currently before this court for}

^cont...

⁷⁶⁹

^{all purposes during the time period between the date of this Order and any filing under this Order of a new complaint and while their actions are in the process of being transferred as tag-along actions to this court. Dropped plaintiffs continue to be under the obligation to furnish required case-specific discovery on a timely basis;}

^{(6) Dropped plaintiffs who choose not to file new civil actions in federal court within the thirty (30) day period will have their actions dismissed with prejudice by the court unless such plaintiff notifies this court, in writing, within the same thirty (30) day period that a new civil action has been filed in a state court;}

^{(7) After the expiration of the thirty (30) day time period for filing of new complaints for dropped plaintiffs, have filed new complaints the court will enter an order dismissing those plaintiffs from this civil action without prejudice; and}

^{(8) For the application of statues of limitations, lache, or other tie bar laws, the filing date of a newly filed action pursuant to this Order shall be deemed to relate back to the date that any dropped plaintiff originally filed his or her complaint in so far as the new complaint alleges only the claims alleged in the original complaint and joins only the defendants named (or fewer) in the original complaint or the successors of such original defendants.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:}

^{(1) Plaintiff Maggie M. Chaney=s motion to dismiss (document #200748) defendants Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., Jones Medical Industries, Inc. f/k/a Abana Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., a/k/a Shire Richwood, Inc., Ion Laboratories, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Goldline Laboratories, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., United Research Laboratories, Modern Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. f/k/a Rugby Laboratories, Inc., Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Camall Company and King Pharmaceuticals without prejudice is GRANTED.}

^{(2) Plaintiff Betty Williams= motion to dismiss (document #200748) defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Jones Medical Industries, Inc. f/k/a/ Abana Pharm., Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co., Inc., a/k/a Shire Richwood, Inc., Ion Laboratories, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., United Research Laboratories, Inc., Modern Wholesale drug Co., Inc., f/k/a Rugby Laboratories, Inc., Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Camall Company and King Pharmaceuticals without prejudice is GRANTED.}

^{(3) Plaintiffs James F. Barthel=s, Virginia Ann Hopps=, Virginia Hassell=s, Evelyn Turner=s, Deborah Saunders=s and Catherine Herman=s motions to dismiss certain Phentermine Defendants (document #200748) are DENIED AS MOOT.}

^{(4) Plaintiff Mary Smith=s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice (document #200749) is GRANTED.}

^{(5) Qualitest Pharmaceuticals Inc.=s motion to dismiss and motion to file a reply (document #200258) are DENIED AS MOOT.}

^{(6) Plaintiffs= motion to dismiss defendant Upjohn Company (document #200750) is GRANTED.}

^{(7) Plaintiffs= motion to dismiss defendant Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (document #200874) is GRANTED.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷⁰

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 27}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 27 of Special Discovery Master (as to Dismissal of Various Defendants From Cases for Lack of Product ID) is affirmed and Plaintiffs shall file conforming captions within thirty (30) days.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷¹

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 26}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 26 of Special Discovery Master (as to Dismissal of Various Defendants from Cases for Lack of Product ID) is AFFIRMED and plaintiffs shall file conforming captions within thirty (30) days.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷²

^{Re: Angela Migliozzi and Joseph Migliozzi V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. (division of American Home Products Corp., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., and CFI Corp. (98-20435)}

^{Upon consideration of the plaintiffs= motion for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25 9a)(1) applicable to the instant action, directing the substitution Joseph Migliozzi, Administrator of the Estate of Angela Migliozzi, as plaintiff on behalf of Angela Migliozzi, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper and after considering plaintiff=s supporting points and authorities, and the opposition of the defendants thereto, if any, and it appearing to this Court that there is good cause to grant said motion.}

^{ORDERED that the plaintiff=s motion for an order directing the substitution of Joseph Migliozzi, as plaintiff on behalf of Angela Migliozzi be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷³

^{Re: Sandra Thompson V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, inc., and Interneuron, Inc./ Interneuron Pharm., Inc. (98-20126)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for Plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc. and Interneuron, Inc./ Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceeding against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270. This Stipulation may be signed in counter-parts.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷⁴

^{Re: Dorita Resnick, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst laboratories Co., Division of American Home Products Corporation, et al. (98-20069)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the amended complaint, BROUGHT BY JOHN (PAT) FARRELL in the above-referenced matter, are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees and without the need for Plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative Class alleged in the amended complaint, because all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under Pretrial Order No. 450.}

^{This Order is entered pursuant to the following stipulation entered into by Mr. Farrell and all Defendants:}

^{Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii), Plaintiffs John (Pat) Farrell stipulates to dismiss without prejudice all his claims in this lawsuit.}

^{Mr. Farrell filed a diet drug related complaint in the U.S. district Court, Southern District of Texas, on October 28, 1997, which included class action claims for relief and individual claims for his damages. He named as Defendants: Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (division of American Home Products Corp;) Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Gate Pharmaceuticals, A Division of Teva Pharm, USA, Inc.; SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm., Inc, Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.,; and A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (Defendant A.H. Robins has since been acquired by Defendant American Home Products.) An amended complaint, which did not change the parties, was filed on December 30, 1997. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of PA for inclusion in the consolidated drug cases, MDL 1203.}

^{Each Defendant has answered the complaint. Mr. Farrell has submitted PTO no. 22 responses and has been deposed. No party has filed a motion for summary judgment. No Defendant has filed a counterclaim or cross claim.}

^{In PTO No. 450, this Court dismissed all class action claims in Plaintiff=s complaint. Plaintiff has not developed diet drug induced pulmonary hypertension and has not developed diet drug induced valvular heart damage. Mr. Farrell now seeks to dismiss all his claims against all Defendants, without prejudice, to protect his right to bring claims in the future should he later discovery the existence of diet drug induced pulmonary hypertension or diet drug induced valvular heart damage. Plaintiff agrees that, should he institute a case in}

^cont...

⁷⁷⁴

^{the future for personal injuries related to the consumption of a manufacturer=s diet drug, he will file his case in federal court.}

^{Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii), all parties agree to the dismissal of all Plaintiff=s individual injury claims (i.e., his only remaining claims in this lawsuit). This, this stipulation will result in the dismissal (without prejudice) of all remaining claims by Mr. Farrell against all Defendants. All parties will bear their own fees and costs.}

^{This stipulation complies with FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii). All parties to this action, who have entered an appearance and remain in this case, have executed this dismissal through the undersigned counsel of record.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷⁵

^{Re: Dorita Resnic, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Company division of American Home Products corp., et al. (98-20069)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the amended complaint, BROUGHT BY SHAROLYN MERCY in the above-referenced matter, are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees and without the need for Plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative Class alleged in the amended complaint, because all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under Pretrial Order No. 450.}

^{This Order is entered pursuant to the following stipulation entered into by Mr. Farrell and all Defendants:}

^{Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii), Plaintiffs John (Pat) Farrell stipulates to dismiss without prejudice all his claims in this lawsuit.}

^{Ms. Mercy filed a diet drug related complaint in the U.S. district Court, Southern District of Texas, on October 28, 1997, which included class action claims for relief and individual claims for his damages. She named as Defendants: Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (division of American Home Products Corp;) Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Gate Pharmaceuticals, A Division of Teva Pharm, USA, Inc.; SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm., Inc, Richwood Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.,; and A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (Defendant A.H. Robins has since been acquired by Defendant American Home Products.) An amended complaint, which did not change the parties, was filed on December 30, 1997. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of PA for inclusion in the consolidated drug cases, MDL 1203.}

^{Each Defendant has answered the complaint. Mr. Farrell has submitted PTO no. 22 responses and has been deposed. No party has filed a motion for summary judgment. No Defendant has filed a counterclaim or cross claim.}

^{In PTO No. 450, this Court dismissed all class action claims in Plaintiff=s complaint. Plaintiff has not developed diet drug induced pulmonary hypertension and has not developed diet drug induced valvular heart damage. Mr. Farrell now seeks to dismiss all his claims against all Defendants, without prejudice, to protect his right to bring claims in the future should he later discovery the existence of diet drug induced pulmonary hypertension or diet drug induced valvular heart damage. Plaintiff agrees that, should he institute a case in the future for personal injuries related to the consumption of a manufacturer=s diet drug, he will file his case in federal court.}

^{Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii), all parties agree to the dismissal of all Plaintiff=s individual injury claims (i.e., his only remaining claims in this lawsuit). This, this stipulation will result in the dismissal (without prejudice) of all remaining claims by Ms. Mercy against all Defendants. All parties will bear their own fees and costs.}

^{This stipulation complies with FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii). All parties to this action, who have entered an appearance and remain in this case, have executed this dismissal through the undersigned counsel of record.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷⁶

^{Re: Debra L. Sander V. Abana Pharm., Inc., et al. (98-20246)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claim in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendant with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiff must file said case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Abana Pharm., Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Home}

^cont...

⁷⁷⁶

^{Products Corporation; Gate Pharm., a division of Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., ; Interneuron Pharm.., Inc., Ion Labs, Inc.; Ivax Corp., Medeva Pharm., Inc.; Richwood Pharm. Co., Inc., SmithKline Beecham Pharm., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. A division of American Home Products Corp. and Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷⁷

^{Re: Denise Beres, et al. V. American Home Products, Corp., et al. (98-20493)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Denise Beres a alleged in the complaint against all named Defendants in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to these defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{Further, the Plaintiff agrees that should she decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, Plaintiff shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the following Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corporation, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. and Interneuron Pharm., Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷⁸

^{Re: Melinda Hazelton, Kellie Jo Knowles, Valerie Stump, Mary Leon V. Wyeth-Ayerst labs, et al. (98-20098)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corp., Eon Labs, Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Goldline Labs, Inc. and Rugby Labs, against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁷⁹

^{Re: Louise Palmieri, et al. V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20474)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to Frank Montone with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiff to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., American Home Products Corp., Interneuron Pharm., Inc. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm., Inc., Schirer Richwood, Inc., Medeva Pharm., Inc., Fisons Corp. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of the PTO No. 270}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸⁰

^{Re: Kendra Sorenson, Julie Naylor, Joan Perry, lavarda Christensen, Adriana Villegas, Nellie H. Christensen, Michael McClellan, Darwin Stevenson, Julie Kruitmones, Jenny Kruitmoes, Kathleen Mortensen, Sherely Wallbert, Gail Stevenson, Becky Kent, Irene Daley, Shela Painter, Susan Hiatt, Chrlotte Weathers, Joyce Webb, L3eah Butler, Donna Crhistensen, Tannaca Johansen, Donald (sic)Dorald Smith, Laura Meyers, Debbie Smith, Brad Olsen, Mary Ann Martinez, Bruce Bowen, Hugh Miller, Rena Medina, Frank Levy, Diane Richins, Rick Hansen, Bert Jensen, Michelle Olsen V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc.; et al. (98-20209)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Amended Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its owns costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Amended Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiffs= counsel sign this Stipulation on their behalf after due consultation with his clients}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., American Home Products Corp., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Gate Pharmaceuticals, a Division of Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm., Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co., Medeva Pharm., Inc., and Ion Laboratories, Inc., against whom the claims in the Amended complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸¹

^{Re: Kendra Sorenson, Julie Naylor, Joan Perry, Lavarda Christensen, Adriana Villegas, Nellie H. Christensen, Michael McClellan, Darwin Stevenson, Julie Kruitmoes, Jenny Kruitmoes, Kathleen Mortensen, Zherely Wallbert, Gail Stevenson, Becky Kent, Irene Daley V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20209)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiffs= counsel sign this Stipulation on their behalf after due consultation with his clients}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., American Home Products Corp., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Gate Pharmaceuticals, a Division of Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm., Inc., Richwood Pharm. Co., Medeva Pharm., Inc., and Ion Laboratories, Inc., against whom the claims in the Amended complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of PTO No. 270.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸²

^{Re: Brenda Bennett V. American Home Products., et al. (98-20513)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees,}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{Plaintiffs= counsel sign this Stipulation on their behalf after due consultation with his clients}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corp., Wyeth Labs, Inc., A.H. Robins Co., Eon Labs Manufacturing Inc., Zenith Goldline Pharm., Inc., Camall Company, Inc., and Rugby Group, Inc. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸³

^{Re: Christine Prim V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20472)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450. Provided however, that this Order is without prejudice to: any claim for class action medical monitoring relief that any other plaintiff wishes to pursue, in state or federal court; any claims that the individual plaintiff in this case may have or acquire to recover for personal injuries by virtue of any of the conduct alleged in the Complaint; and the right of the individual plaintiff in this case to participate as an absent class member of any class, including without limitation, a class for medical monitoring relief, and in Interneuron limited fund class action and class action settlement, that may be certified in any state or federal litigation, to the extent the plaintiff meets the class definition and eligibility requirements established by the court granting the class certification. Plaintiff further agrees that any claims for personal injury that she may have against the defendants named in this lawsuit, relating to the diet drug litigation, shall be filed in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the only defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, that being A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home Products Corp); and SmithKline Beecham Corp., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸⁴

^{Re: William Bair V. American Home Products Corp. and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. (98-20007)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the only defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of the PTO No. 270.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸⁵

^{Re: Karen Casey V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20059)}

^{It is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed without prejudice as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and without the need for plaintiffs to provide class notice to the putative class alleged in the Complaint, as all class allegations have been dismissed with prejudice under PTO No. 450.}

^{Further, the Plaintiffs agree that should they decide to institute a case in the future for personal injuries relating to diet drug litigation, plaintiffs shall file said case in federal court.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the only defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (Division of American Home Products Corp.) and Interneuron Pharm., Inc. against whom the claims in the complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. The stay relating to proceedings against Interneuron Pharm., Inc. does not apply to stipulations of dismissal pursuant to paragraph 5 of the PTO No. 270.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸⁶

^{Re: Timothy Lampkin V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., et al (98-20125)}

^{Motion having been made by Timothy Lampkin, Plaintiff in the above-styled action, to voluntarily dismiss his Complaint against all defendants herein and it appearing to the court that counsel for the respective Defendants have no objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Timothy Lampkin=s Complaint against all Defendants herein, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., Interneuron Pharm., Inc., Teva Pharm, USA, Inc., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Abana Pharm., Inc. , Shire Richwood, Inc., Ion Labs, Inc. Medeva Pharm. Inc., A.H. Robins Company, Inc and Fisons Corp., is dismissed without prejudice, each party to bear their respective costs.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸⁷

^{Re: Kathleen R. Blaine V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., & A.H., Robins Co., Inc. (99-20089)}

^{It is HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto that the defendants shall have an extension of time until August 2, 1999 to serve a response and memorandum brief in opposition to plaintiff=s Motion, Notice of Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Join Defendant and to Remand this action to the District Court of Douglas County, NE.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸⁸

^{Re: Donna Lee Kitchen V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20618)}

^{Plaintiff=s motion to remand, came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable Louis C. Bechtle. The Court having reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers, and all other papers in this action, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1.) Since the naming of California Citizen Lothanr McMillian, M.D. as defendant in the Amended Complaint, which the court allowed plaintiff to file pursuant to PTO No. 691, destroys diversity, this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Therefore, plaintiff=s Motion to Remand is GRANTED and this action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of CA. In and for the County of San Bernardino which it was originally filed as Case No. RCV 34375.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁸⁹

^{Re: Carol Vonasch and Barbara Carlin V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., et al. (98-20194)}

^{Proposed order granting motion to amend second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}

^{The motion of plaintiffs Carol Vonasch and Barbara Carlin the above-entitled action for an Order Granting Leave to Amend Second Amended Complaint to reinstate Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= Motion to Amend Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is hereby granted and that the Third Amended complaint is deemed filed.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹⁰

^{Re: Robin D. Poindexter V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (division of American Home Prod), Interneuron Pharm., Inc. (98-20300)}

^{Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties hereby file this stipulation dismissing this matter without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.}

^{All defendants to this action, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products, Interneuron Pharm., Inc., have appeared and filed answers. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), counsel for these defendants has signed this stipulation. Plaintiff agrees that she will file any future action arising from her use of fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, or phentermine in federal court, if she can properly plead federal jurisdiction.}

^{Approval of this stipulation would dismiss without prejudice all claims against all defendants, each party to bear its own costs.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹¹

^{Re: Melissa Marie Austin V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs (Div. Of American Home Prod) A.H. Robins Co. and Medeva Pharm., Inc. (98-20387)}

^{Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties hereby file this stipulation dismissing this matter without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.}

^{All defendants to this action, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products, Interneuron Pharm., Inc., have appeared and filed answers. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), counsel for these defendants has signed this stipulation. Defendant Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has not appeared. Approval of this stipulation would dismiss without prejudice all claims against all defendants, each party to bear its owns costs.}

^{Plaintiff agrees that she will file any future action arising from her use of fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, or phentermine in federal court, if she can properly plead federal jurisdiction can be alleged properly.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹²

^{Re: Darlene Broussard, et al. (98-20153) & Pam Veron (99-20090) V. Gate Pharm., et al.}

^{It is ORDERED that the motions (#200968 & #200969) to enroll Rand P. Nolen as additional counsel of record are DENIED. These motions are not necessary under Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on MDL.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹³

^{Re: 14th Application by Special Discovery Master}

^{Upon consideration of the fourteenth Application by Special Discovery master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (5-1-99 through 5-31-99), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application is hereby GRANTED and it is directed that the parties reimburse the Special Discovery Master for disbursements and compensation for legal fees in the amount of $43,288.93 for the period from 5-1-99 through 5-31-99 in, accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹⁴

^{Re: Darlene Broussard, et al. V. Gate Pharm., Inc (98-20153)}

^{Considering the foregoing motion to Substitute Counsel of record for plaintiffs, IT IS ORDERED by the Court that Michelle Alt Hazlett be substituted as counsel for Plaintiffs in place of Jody Anderman of the law firm of LeBlanc, Maples and Waddell, LLC, who will be and is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiff in the above numbered and entitled matter.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹⁵

^{Re: Pam Veron V. Gate Pharm., Inc., et al. (99-20090)}

^{Considering the foregoing motion to Substitute Counsel of record for plaintiffs, IT IS ORDERED by the Court that Michelle Alt Hazlett be substituted as counsel for Plaintiffs in place of Jody Anderman of the law firm of LeBlanc, Maples and Waddell, LLC, who will be and is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiff in the above numbered and entitled matter.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹⁶

^{Re: Beverly Jean Earley V. Gate Pharm., et al. (98-20084)}

^{ORDERED, Plaintiff Beverly Earley=s Motion to Substitute local Colorado counsel is granted, as stipulated by Plaintiff and new former local counsel. The law offices of McAllister & Murphy, P.C. shall be substituted in place of former local counsel, Soctt Jurdem of Buchanan, Jurdem & Zulauf, P.C. Plaintiff=s principal counsel, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, remains counsel to plaintiff Earley.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹⁷

^{Re: Maudie Laney V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20687)}

^{Upon motion of defendant, SHIRE RICHWOOD INC., it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esq. Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Post Office Box 1147, Jackson, TN, 38302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn , P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for Shire Richwood Inc., in this cause.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹⁸

^{Re: Teri Feaker V. American Home Products, et al (98-20690)}

^{Upon motion of defendant, ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC.., it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esq. Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Post Office Box 1147, Jackson, TN, 38302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn , P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM.,., in this cause.}

^7-19-99

⁷⁹⁹

^{Re: Teri Feaker V. American Home Products, et al (98-20690)}

^{Upon motion of defendant, SHIRE RICHWOOD INC., it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esq. Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Post Office Box 1147, Jackson, TN, 38302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn , P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for Shire Richwood Inc., in this cause.}

^7-19-99

⁸⁰⁰

^{Re: Linda Deluca V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20688)}

^{Upon motion of defendant, ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC.., it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esq. Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Post Office Box 1147, Jackson, TN, 38302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn , P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM.,., in this cause.}

^7-19-99

⁸⁰¹

^{Re: Linda Deluca V. American Home Products, et al. (98-20688)}

^{Upon motion of defendant, SHIRE RICHWOOD INC., it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esq. Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Post Office Box 1147, Jackson, TN, 38302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn , P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for Shire Richwood Inc., in this cause.}

^7-19-99

⁸⁰²

^{Re: Darlene Coleman V. American Home Prod., et al. (98-20689)}

^{Upon motion of defendant, ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC.., it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esq. Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Post Office Box 1147, Jackson, TN, 38302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn , P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM.,., in this cause.}

^7-19-99

⁸⁰³

^{Re: Pamela Anderson & Danny Anderson V. American Home Prod., et al. (98-20689)}

^{Upon motion of defendant, SHIRE RICHWOOD INC., it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esq. Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Post Office Box 1147, Jackson, TN, 38302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn , P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for Shire Richwood Inc., in this cause.}

^7-19-99

⁸⁰⁴

^{Re: Darlene Coleman V. American Home Prod., et al. (98-20689)}

^{Upon motion of defendant, SHIRE RICHWOOD INC., it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esq. Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Post Office Box 1147, Jackson, TN, 38302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn , P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for Shire Richwood Inc., in this cause.}

^7-19-99

⁸⁰⁵

^{Re: Maudie Laney V. American Home Prod., et al. (98-200687)}

^{Upon motion of defendant, ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC.., it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esq. Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., Post Office Box 1147, Jackson, TN, 38302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn , P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, is hereby substituted as counsel of record for ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM.,., in this cause.}

^7-19-99

⁸⁰⁶

^{Re: Eileen S. Collins & William Collins V. Les Laboratoires Servier, et al. (98-20299)}

^{Plaintiff Eileen Collins and Williams Collins and the PMC have moved this Court for an Order for the issuance of a letter of request for written answers to interrogatories from Les Laboratoires Servier, a corporate entity of France,}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:}

^{(1) Plaintiffs= motion is granted; and}

^{(2) The Clerk of the Court shall issue to the appropriate French authority the letter of request in the form attached hereto.}

^{SO ORDERED}

^{See PTO for Letter of Request for international judicial assistance pursuant to the Hague convention of 18 March 1970 on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters}

^7-19-99

⁸⁰⁷

^{Re: Cross-claims or third party claims}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that cross-claims or third party claims shall be asserted by any defendant on or before August 1, 1999 in cases with a DID on or before August 1, 1998. For cases with later DIDs, such cross-claims or third party claims shall be asserted no later than 45 days prior to the due date for plaintiffs= designation of case specific expert witnesses.}

^7-20-99

⁸⁰⁸

^{Re: Melinda Johnson V. Gate Pharm., et al. (99-20122)}

^{Upon motion of Defendant sued as RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC, it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esquire, Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., P.O. Box 1147, Jackson, TN 378302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn, P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, are hereby substituted as counsel of record for Defendant sued as RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC. in this case.}

^7-20-99

⁸⁰⁹

^{Re: Tim Hardin & Patsy Hardin V. Gate Pharm., et al. (99-20035)}

^{Upon motion of Defendant sued as ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC, it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esquire, Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., P.O. Box 1147, Jackson, TN 378302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn, P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, are hereby substituted as counsel of record for Defendant sued as ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC. in this case.}

^7-20-99

⁸¹⁰

^{Re: Wanda Beddingfield V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.,et al. (99-20741)}

^{Upon motion of Defendant sued as ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esquire, Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., P.O. Box 1147, Jackson, TN 378302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn, P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, are hereby substituted as counsel of record for Defendant sued as ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC. in this case.}

^7-20-99

⁸¹¹

^{Re: Wanda Beddingfield V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.,et al. (99-20741)}

^{Upon motion of Defendant sued as RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC, it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esquire, Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., P.O. Box 1147, Jackson, TN 378302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn, P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, are hereby substituted as counsel of record for Defendant sued as RICHWOOD PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC. in this case.}

^7-20-99

⁸¹²

^{Re: Gladys Brimhall & Tom Brimhall V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.,et al. (99-20742)}

^{Upon motion of Defendant sued as ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. it is ORDERED that Robert O. Binkley, Jr., Esquire, Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C., P.O. Box 1147, Jackson, TN 378302-1147, be, and the same is hereby allowed to withdraw as counsel and R. Franklin Norton, Gary G. Spangler, W. Mitchell Cramer and Norton & Luhn, P.C., Suite 900 Nations Bank Center, 550 Main Ave., P.O. Box 2467, Knoxville, TN 37901-2467, are hereby substituted as counsel of record for Defendant sued as ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARM., INC. in this case.}

^7-20-99

⁸¹³

^{Re: Gladys Brimhall & Tom Brimhall V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.,et al. (99-20742)}