11-8-2000

1500

Re: Barbara L. Truitt & William D. Truitt V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. et al. (00-20451)

Plaintiffs= request for Leave to amend Petition, in which Plaintiff seeks to add a count of Misrepresentation and Fraud against the Defendants.

The Motion is granted. The proffered First Amended and Substituted Petition for Injunctive Relief and Damages shall filed this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED

11-8-2000

1501

Re: Suzanne L. VanZandt V. WyethAyerst Lab. Co. et al. (00-20863)

Plaintiffs= request for Leave to amend Petition, in which Plaintiff seeks to add a count of Misrepresentation and Fraud against the Defendants.

The Motion is granted. The proffered First Amended and Substituted Petition for Injunctive Relief and Damages shall filed this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED

11-8-2000

1502

Re: Louise I., Huston V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. et al. (00-20260)

Plaintiffs= request for Leave to amend Petition, in which Plaintiff seeks to add a count of Misrepresentation and Fraud against the Defendants.

The Motion is granted. The proffered First Amended and Substituted Petition for Injunctive Relief and Damages shall filed this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED

11-8-2000

1503

Re:Jan V. Lukes and Ronald R. Lukes V. Wyeth-Ayerst, et al. (00-20860)

Plaintiffs= request for Leave to amend Petition, in which Plaintiff seeks to add a count of Misrepresentation and Fraud against the Defendants.

The Motion is granted. The proffered First Amended and Substituted Petition for Injunctive Relief and Damages shall filed this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED

11-8-2000

1504

Re:Patricia D. Slusinski V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. et al. (00-20858)

Plaintiffs= request for Leave to amend Petition, in which Plaintiff seeks to add a count of Misrepresentation and Fraud against the Defendants.

The Motion is granted. The proffered First Amended and Substituted Petition for Injunctive Relief and Damages shall filed this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED

11-14-2000

1505

Re: Judelle McArdle V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20250)

Upon consideration of the Motion for Substitution of Counsel for the Plaintiff, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED and that Aaron M. Levine and the law firm of Levine and Associates and all the attorneys within the firm who have appeared as counsel for plaintiff in the above captioned case shall be deemed to have withdrawn their appearances as counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Miller J. Miller, J. Christopher Ide and Kenneth W. Smith, Miller & Associates, 809 Cameron Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 are recognized as the substituted counsel for plaintiff and that their notice of appearance on behalf of plaintiff is recognized of record in this litigation.

11-14-2000

1506

Re: Delores Miller V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. (00-20033)

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the action against Medeva Pharm., Inc., is hereby dismissed with prejudice from the above civil action, with each party to bear their own costs.

11-22-2000

1507

Re: Wendy A. Ensign and Robin L. Ensign V. American Home Products Corp. & Eon Labs (00-20939)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all parties by their respective counsel hereby stipulate that this action, including all claims asserted therein, be dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any party and with all rights of appeal waived.

11-22-2000

1508

Re: Richard L. Owen, II V. American Home Products Corp. and Wyeth, Co. (99-20567)

Plaintiff, Richard L. Owen, II, Pro Se, and dismissed all claims in the above-captioned proceedings after settlement of the same WITH PREJUDICE

11-22-2000

1509

Re: Jacqueline O=Shea Poux V. American Home Prod. Corp., et al. (99-20172)

It is ORDERED that the motion (#202223) of plaintiff for a protective order is DENIED AS MOOT.

11-22-2000

1510

Re: Sharon Adair, Marie Johnson, Robert England, Diane Davis, Dawn Hartman, Victoria Walton, Catherine Butz, Kathern Farr, Glenda Lewis, Luann Meister, Ken Meister, Karen Modica, Kathleen Paone, Barbara Lazarus, Katherine Littlewood, Joan Sheets, Pat Nitsch, Barbara Naumann, Mary Gilstrap, Mark Gilstrap, Delores Matthews, Veronica Meler, Tammie Pendleton, Cheryl Balbert, Judith Kay Perry, Veronica Dato, Nancy Moravec, Gerri Smith, Michelle Julson, Carolyn Lewis

It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settle and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

11-22-2000

1511

Re: Patsy L. Gorrell (98-20448) Earl Paul Norling, et al. (98-20489); Patrice B. Dorough (98-20562); Karen Rose Heckendorf (98-20564); Agnes M. Zagar (98-20586) V. Wyeth-Ayerst.

It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1 (b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

11-22-2000

1512

Re: The estate of Edna Ferguson V. American Home Produ. (00-20218)

Upon consideration of the Motion of the Branch Law Firm to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff, IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:

See PTO for Conditions

11-22-2000

1513

Re: Georgia Ann Cude and Dwane Cude V. American Home et al. (99-20851)

Plaintiffs, Georgia Ann and Dwane Cude, have moved this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), for an order dismissing, with prejudice, the above captioned case and a case bearing the case number MDL 2:99-20851 (captioned Georgia Ann Cude and Dwane Cude V. Wyeth Ayerst Pharm., Inc.) Having reviewed the Motion and Memorandum in Support and good cause appearing therefrom:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Complaint in the actions designated MDL 99-20467 and MDL 99-20851 are dismissed with prejudice

2. Nothing in this order, or the corresponding dismissal of those actions, shall prejudice plaintiffs= ability to participate in the class action settlement.

3. Each party is to bear its own costs and fees.

11-22-2000

1514

Re: Mary Patnaude V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., et al. (00-20532)

The Motion (#202210) of Ellen W. Burgess for admission pro hac vice of Thomas T. Uhl is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on MDL counsel should file an entry of appearance.

11-22-2000

1515

Re: PMC=s motion for release of funds FILED UNDER SEAL

Upon consideration of PMC=s Motion for Release and Use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esq., Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esq., is directed to make payment on invoices totaling Eighty Seven Thousand Eighty Six Dollars and Forty Two Cents ($87,086.42) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number : #031-201-457 and account number #2030000337576.

11-22-2000

1516

Re: Diane Hankton V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20582)

Upon consideration of plaintiff Diane Hankton=s (APlaintiff@) Motion to Remand and for Costs and Attorney=s Fees and defendants American Home Products Corp., et al.=s (ADefendants@) Opposition thereto, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff filed this class action suit n Louisiana state court on March 3, 2000. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Louisiana residents who have allegedly sustained heart valve damage resulting in mild mitral regurgitation from their ingestion of diet drugs manufactured and sold by Defendants. Asserting that diversity jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. 1332, Defendants removed to the United States District Court for the E.D. of LA on April 3, 2000. The case was transferred to this court by the Judicial Panel for MDL under 28 U.S.C. 1407 for coordinated/consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff seeks an order remanding the case to state court on the basis that this court lacks jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff concedes that the parties are diverse, she disputes that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff also seeks an award for costs and attorney=s fees related to contesting removal.

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 Mercusry Ins. Co., 166 F. 3d 214, 17 (3d Cir. 1999); Laughlin V. Kmart Corp., 50 F. 3d 871, 873 (10^{th Cir. 1995). When a complaint does not demand a precise monetary amount, the district court mast make an independent inquiry into the value of the claim alleged. Angus V. Shiley, 989 F. 2d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 1993). Allegations that damages are less than the jurisdictional threshold are not dispositive. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F. 3d 1404, 1410 (5th Cir. 1995). If the plaintiff}=s cliam for relief can be ignored under state law, thereby allowing recovery of more than $75,000 the case is removable. See id. (citing 1A James W. Moore, et al., Moore=s Federal Practice 0.158, at 204-05 (2d ed. 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. Angus, 989 F. 2d at 146 (affirming district court finding that jurisdiction existed because reasonable jury could have valued damages at over jurisdictional minimum); Meritcare, 166 F.3d at 217 (stating rule ); Int=l Fleet Auto Sales V. Nat=l Auto Credit, No. 97-1675, 1999 WL 95258, at *3 n.7 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1999) (noting that Third Circuit has joined Second and Seventh Circuits in holding that legal certainty/reasonable probability standard applied to both removed cases and cases filed in federal court). But see Penn V. Walmart Stores, Inc. 116 F. supp.2d 557, 565 (D.N.J. 2000) (adopting Apreponderance of evidence@ standard in absence of clear statement from Third Circuit); Chapparo V. State Farm Ins. Co., Civ. No. 99-2063, 1999 WL 961035, at *3 (E.D. PA Oc. 12, 1999) (noting that Third Circuit has not clarified moving defendant=s burden where plaintiff specifies that damages do not exceed $75,00). The party seeking to invoke 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 that on plaintiff=s motion to remand, burden is on defendants to establish federal jurisdiction). The plaintiff=s inability at trial to recover more than the jurisdictional threshold does not oust the district court of jurisdiction. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. V. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938).

Defendants argue that it is facially apparent from language appearing elsewhere in Plaintiff=s Petition that more than $75,000 is in controversy, making the exercise of federal jurisdiction appropriate.

Plaintiff=s Petition states that, in light of the Nationwide Class Action Settlement concerning similar claims, limiting medical monitoring expenses to between $5,000 and $10,000, Defendants Acannot assert in good faith that plaintiff=s individual damages exceed $75,00.@ However, Plaintiff does not demand judgment for a specific amount of damages and has cited no LA state law that limits recovery to the amount claimed in the Petition. In this instance, the court will look to the factual allegations alleged in the Petition to determine

^cont...

¹⁵¹⁶

^{the jurisdictional amount, rather than Plaintiff=s estimate of damages. See Angus, 989 F. 2d at 146 n.4 (stating that determination of whether remand is appropriate when damages demanded are less than jurisdictional minimum depends in part on whether under state law plaintiff is limited to damages claimed); De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1409-10 (holding that if defendant can show that amount in controversy exceeds jurisdictional amount, plaintiff must show that, as matter of law, it is certain that he is unable to recover more than damages claimed in complaint); see also Feldman V. New York Life Ins. Co., No. 97-4684, 1998 WL 94800, at *5-7(E.D. Pa. Mar. 04, 1998) (finding plaintiffs statement that damages did not exceed $75,000 was not controlling, citing Angus and De Aguilar).}

^{Plaintiff and the asserted class seek a judgment awarding all damages to which they are entitled by law. (Pet. 33.) Plaintiff asserts a number of causes of action against Defendants: strict liability, strict products liability, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of implied and/or express warranties. Id. 13. In addition to damages sustained to her heart valve, Plaintiff seeks to recover for Ajustifiable fear that such conditions are irreversible and will worsen.@ Id. 20. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks damages for past and future medical expenses, including the cost of consultations with physicians about the potential risks of diet drugs and diagnostic echocardiograms; disability; past and future emotional distress, including fear of disease; loss of enjoyment of life; physical and mental pain and suffering; inconveniences; past and future mental anguish; and physical pain and suffering. Id. 24. Plaintiff asserts various serious medical conditions suffered by the class, ranging from damage to and disease of essential organs to congestive heart failure. Id. 26B.}

^{The court finds that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied, even if a possible award of attorney=s fees is not considered. The allegations of physical and psychological injuries in Plaintiff=s Petition are sufficiently serious for the court to determine to a reasonable probability that Plaintiff=s suit places more than $75,000 in controversy. See Cotita V. PharmaPlast USA, Inc. 974 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1992) (awarding $150,000 to nurse for fear of contracting AIDS after needle containing infected blood punctured glove); Winser V. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. 537 So. 2d 740 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1988) (upholding award of $1,200,000 for mental pain and suffering and emotional distress caused n part by fear of developing serious illness after exposure to toxic chemicals); PTO No. 317 (holding that claim for medical monitoring alone, arising out of plaintiffs= ingestion of diet drugs, meets jurisdictional requirement); PTO No. 723 (denying remand in diet drug suit because medical monitoring claim, combined with present and future injury claims, met jurisdictional requirement). Plaintiff=s statements that damages cannot reasonably exceed $75,000 are insufficient to oust this court=s jurisdiction, especially where a plaint reading of the Petition indicates that damages will in excess of this amount are potentially recoverable. Accordingly, the exercise of federal jurisdiction is appropriate.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^11-22-2000

¹⁵¹⁷

^{Re: Constance R. Franzoni and James Franzoni V. Abana Pharm., et al. (00-20697)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the time for Defendants Les Laboratories Servier to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to Monday, February 5, 2001}

^11-22-2000

¹⁵¹⁸

^{Re: Venus Gray-Mascarenhas and Marcellus Mascarenhas V. Abana Pharm., et al. (00-20699)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the time for Defendants Les Laboratories Servier to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to Monday, February 5, 2001}

^11-22-2000

¹⁵¹⁹

^{Re: Bonnie L. Craig V. Abana Pharm., et al. (00-20695)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the time for Defendants Les Laboratories Servier to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to Monday February 5, 2001}

^11-22-2000

¹⁵²⁰

^{Re: Esther Conway and Charles Conway V. Abana Pharm., et al. (00-20698)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the time for Defendants Les Laboratories Servier to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to Monday, February 5, 2001}

^11-22-2000

¹⁵²¹

^{Re: Heather Ball V. Abana Pharm., et al. (00-20696)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the time for Defendant Les Laboratories Servier to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to Monday, February 5, 2001}

^11-22-2000

¹⁵²²

^{Re: Marilyn Leinenbach, et al. V. American Home Products Inc., et al. (00-20769)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the time for Defendant Les Laboratories Servier to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to Monday, January 8, 2001}

^11-22-2000

¹⁵²³

^{Re: Barbara J. Kiser V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (00-20093)}

^{Presently before the court is plaintiff Barbara J. Kiser=s Motion to Remand and defendant American Home Products Corp.=s (AAHP@) reply thereto.}

^{AHP does not oppose the Motion to Remand. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Barbara J. Kiser=s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.}

^11-22-2000

¹⁵²⁴

^{Re: Barbara J. Kiser V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (00-20093)}

^{Presently before the court is defendant Bruce Waldon, M.D.=s Motion to Dismiss and plaintiff Barbara J. Kiser=s opposition thereto.}

^{As this case has been remanded to the Circuit Court of Benton County, AR, the Motion to Dismiss is MOOT. Since the court did not reach the merits of the Motion, the defendant is free to refile the Motion in state court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Bruce Waldon, M.D.=s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.}

^11-28-2000

¹⁵²⁵

^{Re: Certain Plaintiffs in State Court Actions}

^{Upon consideration of the Motion of Paul D. Rheingold on behalf of certain plaintiffs in state court action seeking a determination of the application of the plaintiff=s management committee=s common fund fee for certain plaintiffs in state court actions, it is hereby}

^{ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that counsel for certain plaintiffs, Paul D. Rheingold, Esq. shall file a separate document identifying the names of the certain plaintiffs and the court term and number of their state filings.}

^{Upon such filing, this Order shall become effective and it is ordered that the instant motion is granted as to those identified state litigants. The Court accepts that representation of Paul D. Rheingold, Esq. that h has made no use of any PMC work product to date in any of Mr. Rheingold=s state cases without prejudice of the PMC to pursue it=s rights against Mr. Rheingold should facts develop otherwise. Accordingly, the common fund set aside imposed by PTO No.=s 467 and 517 is not applicable to these cases.}

^11-28-2000

¹⁵²⁶

^{Re: PMC=s Motion for Release and Use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Costs Account}

^{FILED UNDER SEAL}

^{Upon consideration of Plaintiffs= Management Committee=s Motion for Release and Use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esq., Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esq. is directed to make payment on invoices totaling Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy Eight Dollars and Forty Cents ($55,178.40) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number: #031-201-457 and account number: #2030000337576}

^11-28-2000

¹⁵²⁷

^{Re: Maxine Everley and Glenn M. Everley V. American Home Prod. Corp.}

^{The Court finds that plaintiff=s Motion to Amend Case Caption is hereby granted.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the caption shall be amended as follows: Glenn M. Everley, Surviving Spouse of Maxine Everley Vs. American Home Products., et al.}

^11-22-2000

¹⁵²⁸

^{Re: Beverly Jean Earley V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc., et al. (98-20084)}

^{Upon consideration of Plaintiff=s petition for a suggestion of remand from this Court to the transferor Court, and the Court having considered the positions of each of the parties, and it appearing to this Court that there is good cause to grant Plaintiff=s Petition, it is hereby ORDERED.}

^{Plaintiff=s petition for a suggestion of remand from this Court to the original transferor Court is GRANTED.}

^12-1-2000

¹⁵²⁹

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 63}

^{It is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 63 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibits A are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibit B of Decision and Recommendation No. 63.}

^12-6-2000

¹⁵³⁰

^{Re: Order governing production of Plaintiffs= Fact Sheets with DID of December 1, 2000 and thereafter}

^{This Order governs the production of Plaintiffs= Fact Sheets and Medical Authorizations in cases with Discovery Initiation Dates (ADIDs@) of December 1, 2000 and thereafter.}

^{On March 23, 1998, the Court entered PTO No. 22, requiring, in part, the plaintiffs= produce Fact Sheets and Medical Authorizations within forty-five (45) days of the DIDs assigned to their cases. See PTO No. 22, Section 2(A). Upon consideration of the need to conduct discovery pursuant to the shortened deadlines established by PTO No. 1467, the court has decided to shorten the time period for plaintiffs to produce Fact Sheets and Medical Authorizations to thirty (30) days.}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, IT IS ORDERED that Section 2(a) of PTO No. 22 is amended to require, in those cases with DIDs of December 1, 2000 and thereafter, that plaintiffs produce Fact Sheets and Medical Authorizations within thirty (30) days of the DID=s assigned to their cases. Each plaintiff shall deliver to each defendant named in that plaintiff=s complaint and to the Plaintiff=s Management Committee (APMC@) a complete Fact Sheet, with copies of each document to be furnished with the completed Fact Sheet as specified in Part VIII of the Fact Sheet, a complete list of Medical Providers and Other Sources of Information, completed authorizations in the form attached to PTO No. 155, and a list of any medical providers as to which plaintiff objects to use of such an authorization.}

^12-6-2000

¹⁵³¹

^{Re: Appointment of Special Master to the AHP Settlement Trust}

^{Pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. 53. And the continuing and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to administer, supervise, interpret and enforce the nationwide Diet Drug Class Action Settlement with American Home Proudcts Corp. (the ASettlement Agreement@), pursuant to section VIII. B.1 of the Settlement Agreement and paragraph 11 of PTO no. 1415, IT IS ORDERED that Gregory P. Miller, Esq. is appointed Special Master to the AHP Settlement Trust (ASpecial Master@).}

^{Class representatives in this action entered into the Settlement Agreement with American Home Products Corp. (AAHP@) on November 18, 1999. The Court entered Pretrial Order No. 997, preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and appointing Mr. Miller and the Honorable C. Judson Hamlin as the Interim Claims Administrators (AICAs@) under Section VI.A.2 of the Settlement Agreement. Previously, this Court also appointed Mr. Miller in PTO No. 26 as the Special Discovery Master in the underlying MDL-1203 in re: Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine( Products Liability Litigation (AMDL 1203 Litigation@).}

^{As one of the ICAs, Mr. Miller held numerous and extensive meetings with Class Counsel and representatives for AHP to discuss the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The ICA=s quickly devised a structure for: (1) providing information and assistance to Class Members; (2) collecting claims submitted by the Class Members; (3) processing the claims to determine the Class Members= eligibility for benefits; and (4) furnishing benefits to the Class Members. In a very short period of time, the ICAs, with the assistance of Class Counsel and AHP, interviewed and selected several vendors to perform these services. The ICAs then scheduled and participated in comprehensive training sessions with each vendor to educate them about the history and provisions of the Settlement Agreement.}

^{On February 25, 2000, the Court entered PreTrial Order No. 1159, appointing seven (7) Trustees nominated by the parties to manage the AHP Settlement Trust (ATrust@), which was created to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement under the Court=s supervision. The ICAs were instrumental in the smooth transition of responsibilities to the Trustees and worked with the Trustees to meet the obligations imposed by the Settlement Agreement prior to the effective date of the Trust.}

^{The Court convened a Fairness Hearing, held May 2, 2000 through May 7, 2000, to consider the reasonableness and fairness of the Settlement Agreement. Additional arguments were heard on June 1, 2000.}

^Cont...

¹⁵³¹

^{The Court also held a final hearing on August 10, 2000, pertaining to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Settlement Agreement. The Court entered PTO No. 1415, approving the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate.}

^{The Court believes that Mr. Miller=s experiences as Special Discovery Master in the MDL 1203 Litigation and as an Interim Claims Administrator make his assistance in overseeing the implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement invaluable to the Court. As Interim Claims Administrator, Mr. Miller has demonstrated that he is fully knowledgeable about the Settlement Agreement and what is required to implement its provisions. For these reasons, the Court appoints Mr. Miller as Special Master to the AHP Settlement Trust to handle the matters described below.}

^{First, the Court charges Mr. Miller with the development of an arbitration system. The Settlement Agreement provides that any Class Member, attorney or subrogee may challenge the Trustees= or Claims Administrator=s final determination of Matrix Compensation Benefits by filing a Notice of Appeal. See Section VI. C.4.h. AHP also may appeal the Trustees= final determination as to AHP=s right to a Credit. See Section VI.D.1.f. Under Sections VI.C.4.i and VI.D.1.g of the Settlement Agreement, the Court is charged with referring these appeals to arbitration. Specifically, the Settlement Agreement requires the Court to appoint: (1) a panel of arbitrators for appeals initiated by Class Members, attorneys or subrogees; and (2) a single arbitrator for appeals initiated by AHP.}

^{In conjunction with his role as Special Master, the Court will appoint Mr. Miller to preside as Chair over the panel of arbitrators and the single arbitrator appointed to hear all appeals relating to AHP=s requests for Credits. As Chair, Mr. Miller will develop, organize and maintain the arbitration process so that all appeals allowed under the Settlement Agreement are resolved in a fair and expeditious manner. This will require that Mr. Miller create a network of neutral and qualified arbitrators, establish arbitration rules and oversee the arbitration process so as to be in a position to inform the Court on all matters pertaining to these arbitrations. Mr. Miller shall have the authority to implement any process that he deems necessary to fulfill these goals.}

^{Second, the Court reserves the right to refer policy disputes to Mr. Miller. Throughout the course of its operations, it will be necessary for the Trust to develop policies to ensure the prompt processing of Class Members= claims. If a dispute arises among the parties in connection with a proposed policy, any party may file a motion requesting the Court to enter a Court Approved Procedure (ACAP@) addressing the policy at issue. The Court may refer certain policy disputes to Mr. Miller and direct that he meet with the parties and attempt to resolve the dispute in a prompt and informal manner. In the event this informal process fails to resolve the differences among the parties, Mr. Miller will submit a decision and recommendation and a proposed CAP to the Court for consideration. The parties will have seven (7) calendar days from the date Mr. Miller files a decision and recommendation with the Court to assert an appeal in the form of a motion. If no appeal is filed within seven (7) days , the decision and recommendation will be deemed to be accepted by all parties, and the Court will enter the CAP accordingly.}

^{Third, the Court will require Mr. Miller to assist in monitoring the Trust=s compliance with the reporting requirements of the Settlement Agreement and the AHP Settlement Trust Agreement. Pursuant to the Court=s continuing and exclusive jurisdiction, the Court will review and analyze the Trust=s reports. At times, the Court may request that Mr. Miller inquire about and analyze certain portions of these reports.}

^{In addition to the duties outlined above, the Court invites discretion may assign Mr. Miller any other responsibilities deemed necessary to ensure the expeditious and fair payment of claims under the Settlement Agreement. Until further notice, the court directs Mr. Miller to convene status conferences monthly or more frequently if necessary, in order to monitor the progress of all matters relating to the operation of the AHP Settlement Trust.}

^{In order to execute the duties of his office, the Special Master to the AHP Settlement Trust shall be vested with the powers described and contemplated under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(c), (d), and (e), including the right to:}

^{(1) Receive from the Trust all Notices of Appeal submitted to the Court and the Trustees and/or Claims Administrator pursuant to Section VI.C.4.h of the Settlement Agreement;}

^{(2) Establish, enforce and interpret arbitration rules to govern appeals of the Trustees= and Claims Administrator=s final determinations;}

^{(3) Establish a panel of neutral arbitrators and oversee the assignment of appeals;}

^{(4) Schedule, convene, preside over and otherwise conduct any meetings, hearings, conferences, disposition or proceedings deemed necessary to resolve disputes;}

⁽⁵⁾

^cont...

¹⁵³¹

^{(5) Prepare and file decisions and recommendations and proposed CAPs pertaining to disputes between the parties;}

^{(6) Monitor all activities of the Trust and review and analyze all reports produced by the Trust in accordance with the obligations imposed by the Settlement Agreement and the AHP Settlement Trust Agreement; and}

^{(7) Incur necessary expenses and costs at reasonable levels to permit him to function fully in pursuance of the tasks covered by this reference, including the authority to incur expenses and costs needed to engage the services of personnel and to acquire supplies and customary services associated therewith.}

^{While acting in this capacity, Mr. Miller shall submit to the Court an application for counsel fees and costs associated with his service as Special Master. The Special Master shall only incur those fees and costs reasonably necessary to fulfill his duties under this order, or any other order issued by the Court from time to time hereafter. All applications for fees and costs should be served on Trust, Class Counsel and representatives for AHP at the time they are filed with the Court. Upon approval by the Court of Mr. Miller=s applications for fees and costs, the approved sums shall be deemed authorized expenses relating to the implementation of the Settlement Agreement and the administration of the Trusts. SO ORDERED.}

^12-6-2000

¹⁵³²

^{Re: Hearing held On November 30, 2000}

^{On a hearing held on 11-30-2000, the court ruled the following:}

^{1. Interneuron=s Motion for Disclosure of Class Action Settlement Status of Plaintiffs in Brown, Civ. No. 99-20593 (Doc. #202038) is WITHDRAWN.}

^{2. Defendant rugby Labs., Inc.=s Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Certain Portions of Plaintiffs= Complaint in Murscoe, Civ. No. 00-20690 (Doc. #201965) IS DENIED AS MOOT.}

^{3. Counsel shall report to the court in two weeks on the status of AHP=s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs= Expert Dr. Arthur Levene in Burnside, Civ. No. 99-20003; Olsen, Civ. No. 98-20065 and Dungan, Civ. No. 99-20030. (Doc. # 20287)}

^{4. Plaintiffs= Motion for Relief fro PTO No. 1467 in Blish, civ. No. 99-20634; Averhart, civ. No. 99-20843; Hawkins, Civ. No. 99-20631; and Robinson, Civ. No. 99-20039 (Doc. # 202136) is referred to the Special Master.}

^{5. AHP will file a brief on Defendant Charles William Bodie, M.D.=s Motion to Sever and Remand in Adams, Civ. No. 00-20610. (Doc. #202085)}

^{6. Counsel shall report to the court next week on Plaintiff=s Motion for Protective Order in Sickles, Civ. No. 98-20728}

^{7. Plaintiff=s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice in Berman, Civ. No. 00-20392 (Doc. #201984) is WITHDRAWN}

^{8. The Brown Class Representative Plaintiffs= Motion to Sanction Napoli, Kaiswer & Bern and Kenneth J. Chesebro in Brown, Civ. No. 99-20593 (Doc. #202124) is WITHDRAWN}

^{9. Defendant Walgreen=s Motion to Dismiss in Burns, Civ. No. 99-2033 (Doc. #201849) is GRANTED. This case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.}

^{10. The next status conference will be held on January 10, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-B, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106}

^12-7-2000

¹⁵³³

^{Re: Jana L. Harris V. American Home Products corp., et al. (99-20186)}

^{Upon consideration of Plaintiff Jana L. Harris= Motion to Remand; defendants American Home Products Corp., Hassig Drug Inc., and Rosemont Pharm., Corp.=s respective oppositions thereto; and Plaintiff=s Reply to American Home Products= Opposition, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.}

^12-7-2000

¹⁵³⁴

^{Re: Deborah Mason and Karen Mills Motion to intervene}

^{Presently before the court is a Motion to Intervene filed in this court on March 28, 2000 by Deborah Mason and Karen Mills, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and their affected infants, who move to intervene with regard to the proposed Settlement. The gist of the moving parties was that intervention was necessary in order to clarify whether unborn children of mothers who took diet drugs were included as Class members. The intervenors sought relief in the alternative. That is, they requested that if the intervention was granted they would ask the court to certify a Sub-class of infants and persons whose}

^cont...

¹⁵³⁴

^{rights are derived from infants exposed prenatally to fenfluramine or dexfenfluramine or in the alternative that an Order be entered that such infants and persons whose claims are derived from such infants be not affected in any manner by the Settlement Agreement and associated Orders. On May 9, 2000 the court held the matter and the consequence of the hearing on May 9,2000 as set forth on pages 166 and 167 of the transcript was that parties representing Class representatives and the defendants represented to the court that unborn fetuses are not considered diet drug recipients. It was represented that they could once be born derivative claimants under the Settlement but as unborn, they are not diet drug recipients and consequently not Class members. Thereafter on July 20, 2000 the Fourth Amendment to the Settlement Agreement included in the definition of ASettled Claims@ the following reference to this topic:}

^{AIn addition, not withstanding the foregoing, Settled Claims do not include claims arising from the exposure of unborn children in uteri to Pondimin of Redux, and persons alleging exposure in uteri to Pondimin or Redux shall not be considered Diet Drug Recipients eligible for benefits under this Agreement.@}

^{See also PTO Nos. 1374 and 1415.}

^{Following the positions taken by Class counsel and American Home Products at the Fairness Hearing on May 9, 2000 and the addition of the Fourth Amendment to the Settlement Agreement, the concerns of the moving parties being addressed therein, the proposed Intervenors formally withdrew their objection to the Settlement on August 7, 2000. See docket paper no. 1127.}

^{For the foregoing reasons the Motion to Intervene is DENIED AS MOOT.}

^12-11-2000

¹⁵³⁵

^{Re: Anna Bogden V. American Home Products Corp.,et al. (99-20741)}

^{Upon consideration of the Stipulation of the law firm Mainor & Harris to withdraw as counsel for Anna Bogden, IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions.}

^{See PTO for conditions.}

^12-11-2000

¹⁵³⁶

^{Re: Linda Burns V. Abana Pharm., et al. (99-20333)}

^{Upon reconsideration of the court=s ruling in PTO No. 1124, the court notes that it was plain to the parties in this case, but not to the court, that Plaintiff and Walgreen Co. were citizens of the State of Il. The court normally expects moving counsel and counsel for the adverse side to, in some manner, bring to the court=s attention that the amendment of a complaint, adding a non-diverse party, will destroy diversity of citizenship and divest the court of jurisdiction. Had the court been advised of the common citizenship of Plaintiff and Walgreen Co., the court would likely not have granted the Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff=s Second Amended Complaint at Law to the extent that Plaintiff sought to name Walgreen co. as a defendant. As a consequence of the failure to alert the court to this critical jurisdictional issue, the amendment was allowed and subsequent proceedings brought about dismissal of the case. PTO No. 1532 paragraph 9. Accordingly, in order to correct the docket, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1. Paragraph 6 of PTO No. 1124, granting the Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff=s Second Amended Complaint at Law (Doc. #201328), is VACATED to the extent that the court granted leave to file the Second Amended complaint naming Walgreen Co. as a defendant; and}

^{2. Paragraph 9 of PTO No. 1532, dismissing Plaintiff=s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is vacated and the case is REOPENED.}

^12-11-2000

¹⁵³⁷

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Order Authorizing AHP Settlement Trust to Enter into an Employment Agreement with James A. Wunderle}

^{It having been represented to the Court by the AHP Settlement Trust that it has negotiated an Employment Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (AThe Employment Agreement@) with James A. Wunderle for James A. Wunderle to serve as Chief Operating Officer and Claims Administrator of the AHP Settlement Trust, that the Bard of Trustees of the AHP Settlement Trust has resolved to enter in the Employment Agreement that James A. Wunderle has served as a consultant to the Interim claims Administrator and is familiar with the operations and the mission of the AHP Settlement Trust, that James A. Wunderle appears to have the experience and qualifications to carry out te tasks of Chief Operating Officer and Claims Administrator of the AHP Settlement Trust, as set forth in the resume attached hereto as Exhibit B, and that the terms of the Employment Agreement were disclosed to the Parties to the above-captioned}

^cont...

¹⁵³⁷

^{action and revised according to their suggestions, and the Court having reviewed the Employment Agreement were disclosed to the Parties to the above-captioned action and revised according to their suggestions, and the Court having reviewed the Employment Agreement independently, it is hereby ORDERED that the AHP Settlement Trust is authorized to enter into an Employment Agreement with James A. Wunderle on the terms set forth in Exhibit A.}

^12-11-2000

¹⁵³⁸

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer and Joby Jackson-Reid V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{Order Authorizing AHP Settlement Trust to Enter into an Employment Agreement with Judson Hamlin}

^{It having been represented to the Court by the AHP Settlement Trust that it has negotiated an Employment Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (AThe Employment Agreement@) with C. Judson Hamlin for C. Judson Hamlin to serve as Director, Claims Administration of the AHP Settlement Trust, that the Board of Trustees of the AHP Settlement Trust has resolved to enter in the Employment Agreement, that C. Judson Hamlin has served as an Interim Claims Administrator and is familiar with the operations and the mission of the AHP Settlement Trust, that C. Judson Hamlin Appears to have the experience and qualifications to carry out the tasks of Director, Claims Administration of the AHP Settlement Trust by virtue of his prior performance as an Interim Claims Administrator, and that the terms of the Employment Agreement were disclosed to the Parties to the above-captioned action and revised according to their suggestions, and the Court having reviewed the Employment Agreement independently, it is hereby ORDERED that the AHP Settlement Trust is authorized to enter into an Employment Agreement with C. Judson Hamlin on the terms set forth in Exhibit A.}

^12-11-2000

¹⁵³⁹

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

^{Upon consideration of the motion of Plaintiffs New Hampshire Insurance Co. and AIG Europe (UK) Limited, London (collectively ANew Hampshire@) for Return of Funds, and any opposition and argument thereto, it is ORDERED that New Hampshire=s motion is GRANTED.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is to return all funds deposited into the Registry of the Court by New Hampshire, together with accrued interest, by check payable to AIG Europe UK Ltd. in accordance with New Hampshire=s Motion for Return of Funds.}

^12-11-2000

¹⁵⁴⁰

^{Re: Reliance Insurance Company of Illinois V. Les Laboratoires Servier and Interneuron Pharm. (98-20733)}

^{Upon consideration of Reliance Insurance Co. of Il.=s Motion to Compel the Clerk of Court to Return its Deposit, it is hereby ordered that said motion to is GRANTED.}

^{It is hereby ORDERED:}

^{The Clerk of Court shall return Reliance=s deposit of Five Million Dollars, together with any interest accrued from the date of deposit, November 20, 1998, to Reliance. The check shall be made payable to Reliance National and it shall be sent, via Federal Express, to:}

^{Haydee Santini}

^{Assistant Vice President}

^{Reliance National}

^{77 Water Street}

^{11th Floor}

^{New York, NY 10005}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁴¹

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 73}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 73 of Special Discovery Master (as to Non-Compliant Plaintiffs) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A appear before this Court to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution on January 10, 2001.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit B hereto appear before this Court to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failure to fully comply with the fact sheet requirements of PTO No. 22}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁴²

^{Re: Susan P. Hill V. American Home Products, et al (98-20531); , Jo Ann Frontera V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.(98-20565); A. Magali McArthur, et al. V. Wyeth Ayerst (98-20584) ; Jeanette Mejia, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst.(98-20561)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁴³

^{Re: 13th Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses}

^{Upon consideration of the Thirteenth Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (9/1/00 through 9/30/00), 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 $29,009.43 for the period from 9/1/00 through 9/30/00, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁴⁴

^{Re: Phyllis Cortez V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20636)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of the Branch Law Firm and Turner W. Branch (Docket #202245) to withdraw as counsel for Phyllis Cortez, IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{See PTO}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁴⁵

^{Re: Karen S. Mills V. American Home Products Corp (00-20754)}

^{The request of the plaintiffs for leave to add as a defendant, Les Laboratories Servier and to substitute the same for the entity originally named in the Complaint as ADefendant A@ having been read and considered, it is hereby.}

^{ORDERED, that the plaintiff is granted leave to add the said Les Laboratories Servier as a defendant in this civil action and to amend the Complaint adding the said party as a defendant.}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁴⁶

^{Re: Charlena Harrison V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20580)}

^{Upon consideration of the parties arguments heard on Plaintiff, CHARLENA HARRISON=S Motion to voluntarily Dismiss the above-referenced action with prejudice. IT IS ORDERED:}

^{1. The above-referenced action is hereby dismissed with prejudice}

^{2. As this class has never been certified the notice requirements of Rule 23(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. are hereby waived: and}

^{3. Each party shall bear their own attorney fees and costs.}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁴⁷

^{Re: Pamela Sirvent V. American Home Products Corp. and Eckerds Corp. (00-20123)}

^{Upon consideration of the parties arguments heard on Plaintiff, PAMELA SIRVENT=S, Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the above-referenced action, IT IS ORDERED:}

^{1. The above-referenced action is hereby dismissed}

^{2. As this class has never been certified the notice requirements of Rule 23(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. are hereby waived; and}

^{3. Each party shall bear their own attorney fees and costs}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁴⁸

^{Re: Relief from Discovery}

^{It is ORDERED that plaintiffs= motion (#202134) for relief from discovery deadline imposed by PTO No.s 1467 is DENIED AS MOOT as it relates to the following cases: Slusinski, CA 99-20858; Pirzlaff, CA 99-20859; Lukes, CA 99-20860; Allen CA 99-20861; Olsen 99-20862; and Morenz Ca 99-20864.}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁴⁹

^{Re: Rebecca Blish V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20634)}

^{Upon consideration of the motion of Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P. (Docket #202214) to withdraw as counsel for Annette Raley, IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions.}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁵⁰

^{Re: Maryann Kroll V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20169)}

^{COME NOW Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys of record, and Defendants American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., and Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm. Inc., by and through their attorneys of record, and stipulate and agree as follows:}

^{1. That Plaintiff=s Motion for Class Certification be stayed for an additional period of sixty (60) days from November 21, 2000}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁵¹

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 66}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 66 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal of Various Defendants with Prejudice is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants listed on Exhibit A are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits B and Q of Decision and Recommendations No. 66}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁵²

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 71}

^{It is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 71 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs= cases listed on Exhibit B shall be marked Aclosed@ by the Clerk of Court.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibits A and B are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits C through X of Decision and Recommendation No. 71}

^12-12-2000

¹⁵⁵³

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 72}

^{It is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 72 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibits A are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits B through I of Decision and Recommendation No. 72}

^12-13-2000

¹⁵⁵⁴

^{Re: Melinda Sirois V. American Home Products, et al. (00-21020)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^12-14-2000

¹⁵⁵⁵

^{Re: Jeanne L. Fisher V. American Home Products Corp. (00-20554)}

^{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 WITH PREJUDICE as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees, and based upon consultation with counsel, Plaintiff has full and complete understanding of the impact of her decision to dismiss her claims with prejudice (Plaintiff has stipulated to dismissal with prejudice pursuant to the Affidavit attached hereto).}

^{Plaintiff certifies that she has complied with PTO 22 by producing a completed Fact Sheet, List of Medical Providers and properly executed Authorization forms.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the following Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, those being American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Lab. (Div. of American Home Products Corp), and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. Defendants also stipulate to the DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE of all cross-claims filed by them in this action.}

^12-15-2000

¹⁵⁵⁶

^{Re: Lula Moore V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20497)}

^{IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff=s Motion for Quick Remand is DENIED.}

^{This action, involving claims for injuries from the ingestion of diet drugs, was originally filed in Mississippi state court and removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division (the Atransferor court@). Like hundreds of similar lawsuits, the case was transferred to this court by the Judicial Panel for MDL under 28 USC 1407 for coordinated discovery and consolidated pretrial proceedings.}

^{Plaintiff asserts that she has been diagnosed with valvular heart disease and that her treating physician has opined that she will need heart valve replacement surgery. According to Plaintiff, it is overly burdensome and physically risky to require her to prosecute her claim in this court. Additionally, Plaintiff notes that she filed, in the transferor court, a motion to remand the case to state court on the basis that there is a properly joined Mississippi defendant. Thus, Plaintiff requests that the court entered an order remanding her case to the transferor court.}

^{Plaintiff misunderstands the nature and procedures of this MDL No. 1203. First, a copy of any pretrial motion file din the transferor court may be submitted to this court for consideration. Thus, if Plaintiff wishes to have the motion to remand ruled on, she need only submit a copy to the court.}

^{Second, upon completion of pretrial proceedings in this court, a suggestion of remand will be filed with the JPML, which will presumably remand Plaintiff=s case to the transferor court. See 28 U.S.C. 1407(a) (stating that A[each action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred@). Any trial of Plaintiff=s case will occur in Mississippi, not Pennsylvania. Thus it is highly unlikely that Plaintiff=s physical presence in this court will be necessary at any time during pretrial proceedings. Also, the court has appointed the PMC to oversee the conduct of consolidated/coordinated pretrial proceedings on behalf of plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered, inter alia, heart valvulopathy from the ingestion of the diet drugs at issue in this case. (Pretrial Order No. 6.) Thus, although the court may at times require the presence of Plaintiff=s Mississippi counsel, she is free to affiliate with the PMC in order to minimize the need for her physical presence at proceedings in this court.}

^{Third, Plaintiff=s motion essentially challenges the propriety of the JPML=s order transferring her case to this court. Her motion is neither the proper procedure for challenging the transfer order, nor is it brought in the appropriate forum. Proceedings for review of an order of the JPML are permitted only by extraordinary writ pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1651. See 28 U.S.C. 1407(e) (specifying procedure). Furthermore, A[petitions for an extraordinary writ to review an order to transfer...shall be filed only in the court of appeals having jurisdiction over the transferee district.@ Id. Thus, this court has no authority to grant the relief requested by Plaintiff.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^12-18-2000

¹⁵⁵⁷

^{Re: Charlene Larson V. American Home Products (00-21033) Jeanille Gooch V. AHP (00-21032)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁵⁸

^{Re: Diane Richins V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., et al. (00-20446)}

^{Based upon the stipulation of the Plaintiff and Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, division of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (AGate@), to allow Gate to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff=s Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gate shall have leave to file and Amended Answer.}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁵⁹

^{Re: Julie Naylor V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., et al. (00-20014)}

^{Based upon the stipulation of the Plaintiff and Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, division of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (AGate@), to allow Gate to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff=s Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gate shall have leave to file and Amended Answer.}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁶⁰

^{Re: Shirley A. Johnson V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., et al. (00-20011)}

^{Based upon the stipulation of the Plaintiff and Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, division of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (AGate@), to allow Gate to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff=s Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gate shall have leave to file and Amended Answer.}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁶¹

^{Re: Mary Ann Martinez V. Wyeth Ayerst Pharm., Inc, et al. (00-20232)}

^{Based upon the stipulation of the Plaintiff and Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, division of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (AGate@), to allow Gate to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff=s Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gate shall have leave to file and Amended Answer}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁶²

^{Re: Donna Anderson V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., et al. (00-20013)}

^{Based upon the stipulation of the Plaintiff and Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, division of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (AGate@), to allow Gate to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff=s Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gate shall have leave to file and Amended Answer.}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁶³

^{Re: Bruce Bowen V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., Inc., et al. (00-20010)}

^{Based upon the stipulation of the Plaintiff and Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, division of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (AGate@), to allow Gate to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff=s Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gate shall have leave to file and Amended Answer.}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁶⁴

^{Re: Donna Christensen V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm. Inc., et al. (00-20447)}

^{Based upon the stipulation of the Plaintiff and Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, division of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (AGate@), to allow Gate to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff=s Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gate shall have leave to file and Amended Answer.}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁶⁵

^{Re: Sheri Wetzel V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm. Inc., et al. (00-20012)}

^{Based upon the stipulation of the Plaintiff and Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, division of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (AGate@), to allow Gate to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff=s Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gate shall have leave to file and Amended Answer.}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁶⁶

^{Re: Tannaca Johansen V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., Inc., et al. (00-20448)}

^{Based upon the stipulation of the Plaintiff and Defendant Gate Pharmaceuticals, division of Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. (AGate@), to allow Gate to file an Amended Answer to Plaintiff=s Complaint, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gate shall have leave to file and Amended Answer}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁶⁷

^{Re: Janice Christensen and Val Christense V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. et al. (00-20448)}

^{This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiffs= Motion to Seal Document.}

^{The Court, having reviewed the Motion, and finding good cause therein; the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs= Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause, filed on December 4, 2000, shall be sealed.}

^12-19-2000

¹⁵⁶⁸

^{Re: Release and Use of Funds from MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account FILED UNDER SEAL}

^{Upon consideration of the PMC=s Motion for Release and Use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esquire, Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esq., is directed to make payment on invoices totaling One Hundred Three Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Nine Dollars and Thirty Three Cents ($103,629.33) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number :........................}

^12-27-2000

¹⁵⁶⁹

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 75}

^{IT IS ORDERED that D&R No. 75 of Special Discovery Master (as to Non-Compliant Plaintiffs) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A appear before this court to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution on January 10, 2001 at 2:00 pm.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit B appear before this court to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failure to fully comply with the fact sheet requirements of PTO no. 22 on January 10, 2001 at 2:00 pm.}

^{SO ORDERED}

^12-27-2000

¹⁵⁷⁰

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 76}

^{IT IS ORDERED that D&R No. 75 of Special Discovery Master (as to Non-Compliant Plaintiffs) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A appear before this court to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution on January 10, 2001 at 2:00 pm.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit B appear before this court to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failure to fully comply with the fact sheet requirements of PTO no. 22 on January 10, 2001 at 2:00 pm.}

^{SO ORDERED}

^1-2-2001

¹⁵⁷¹

^{Re: Tracy Bass V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., et al. (98-20735)}

^{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 with prejudice and on the merits as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have 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.}

^1-2-2001

¹⁵⁷²

^{Re: Mildred Miller and Donald Miller V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al. (98-20520)}

^{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 with prejudice and on the merits as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have 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.}

^1-2-2001

¹⁵⁷³

^{Re: Marianne Harris and Earl C. Harris V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al. (00-20405)}

^{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 with prejudice and on the merits as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have 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.}

^1-2-2001

¹⁵⁷⁴

^{Re: Carol LoRE and Pasquale LoRE V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. et al. (98-20769)}

^{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 with prejudice and on the merits as to all named defendants with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of all defendants who have 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 Stipulations.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁷⁵

^{Re: increase of rates for members of the firm of Zelnick, Mann and Winikur, P.C.}

^{The court appointed accountants have requested that the court consider their request for an increase in rates for members of the firm of Zelnick, Mann and Winikur, P.C. to perform the duties required by the court. While the services on this case are virtually concluded to the extent there are duties yet to be completed the rates appear to the court to be justified and reasonable. The accountants have gained case-specific experience over time and I believe that the resultant benefits to the case in both efficiency, reliability and skill warrant the increase.}

^{Any person having any objection to the proposed increases set forth below should show cause why such increase should not be allowed by filing such objection with the Clerk of Court on or before Tuesday, January 16, 2001. It is contemplated that the rates would be deemed effective, to the extent that they are ultimately approved, January 1, 2001}

^{Partner $160.00 (current rate) $185.00 (proposed new rate)}

^{Manager $100.00 (current rate) $120.00 (proposed new rate)}

^{Senior Accountant $ 90.00 (current rate) $110.00 (proposed new rates)}

^{Staff Accountant $70.00 (current rate) $ 80.00 (proposed new rate)}

^{Para-professional $60.00 (current rate) $ 70.00 (proposed new rate)}

^{Secretary $45.00 (current rate) $ 50.00 (propose new rate)}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁷⁶

^{Re: Shannon Bradley and Kevin Bradley V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (99-20675)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁷⁷

^{Re: Joyce Bryant V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20185)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁷⁸

^{Re: Kathleen Ann Campbell and Lynn D. Campbell V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (00-20491)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁷⁹

^{Re: Danielle Burnside and Jack J. Burnside V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (99-20003)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸⁰

^{Re: Sue Ann Curtis and James R. Curtis V. A.H. Robins Co., et al. (00-20560)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸¹

^{Re: Victoria Kay Dungan V. A.H. Robins Co., et al. (99-20030)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸²

^{Re: Lynda Fuller V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20484)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸³

^{Re: Colina Gadd V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20492)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸⁴

^{Re: Alice Harvey V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20485)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸⁵

^{Re: Blanche Headman and Lynn Headman V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (00-20489)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸⁶

^{Re: Joan Sant v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc, et al. (00-20182)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸⁷

^{Re: Denise Martinez and Juan Martinez V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-21034)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸⁸

^{Re: Karen Lang V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20183)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁸⁹

^{Re: Susan Kruse V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20670)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹⁰

^{Re: Florence Stowe and David Stowe V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20701)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹¹

^{Re: Judy Jackson and Jay L. Jackson V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20494)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹²

^{Re: Wendy Klossner V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20562)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹³

^{Re: Florence Koster and Robert Koster V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20823)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹⁴

^{Re: Jamie Wilson V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20486)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹⁵

^{Re: Darlene Parry and Bruce Grant Parry V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al.}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹⁶

^{Re: Ruth Tripp V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20488)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹⁷

^{Re: Patricia Vlietstra and Paul Vlietstra, Jr. V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20731)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹⁸

^{Re: Katherine A. Olsen and Wayne Verl Olsen V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (98-20665)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁵⁹⁹

^{Re: Linda Slick V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20805)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁶⁰⁰

^{Re: Ivadell Sinkinson V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc, et al. (00-20184)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-5-2001

¹⁶⁰¹

^{Re: Barbara Scoggins and David L. Scoggins Vs. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-20826)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co. Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, (A div. of AHP Corp.) be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶⁰²

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 67}

^{It is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 67 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs= cases listed on Exhibit B shall be marked Aclosed@ by the Clerk of Court}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibits A and B are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits C through P of Decision and Recommendation No. 67}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶⁰³

^{Re: Decision and Recommendation No. 74}

^{It is hereby ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 74 of the Special Discovery Master (as to Dismissal of Various Defendants from Cases for Lack of Product ID) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants listed on Exhibit A are DISMISSED from the cases listed on Exhibits B through K of Decision and Recommendation No. 74}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶⁰⁴

^{Re: Deborah Naraine V. American Home Products, et a. (00-20978) and Mary Caron Padgett V. American Home Products, et al. (00-20979)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedures of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶⁰⁵

^{Re: Sharon Cornell V. American Home Products, et al. (00-21040)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶⁰⁶

^{Re: Janie Davis V. American Home Products, et al. (00-21028)}

^{Emily Karen Pindak, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (00-21049)}

^{Gayle W. Thompson, et al. V. American Home Products, et al. (00-21059)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶⁰⁷

^{Re: Peggy Luann Mikolajczyk and Edward A. Mikolajczyk V. American Home Products Corp., et al.}

^(00-20238)

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been resolved and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶⁰⁸

^{Re: Christine McQuinn and Steven P. McQuinn V. American Home Products Corp.,e t al. (00-20108)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been resolved and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶⁰⁹

^{Re: Vickie L. Gundlach V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20333)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been resolved and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹⁰

^{Re: Ashlyn Conover V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20110)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been resolved and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedures of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹¹

^{Re: Lisa Buschelman and A.H. Buschelman V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20782)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been resolved and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedures of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹²

^{Re: Mark Rosenthal and Angela Rosenthal V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20237)}

^{It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been resolved and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedures of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹³

^{Re: Marjorie and Jonathan West V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20898)}

^{Come Now, the plaintiffs Marjorie and Jonathan West, individually and on behalf of their marital community, by through their attorney of record, Michael Woerner of Keller Rohrback, L.L.P.; Defendants American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., Inc.; Wyeth Labs, Inc., by and through their attorney of record, Kathy A. Cochran of Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson; and Defendant Interneuron Pharm. Inc., by and through its attorney of record, E. Pennock Gheen of Bullivant Houser Bailey, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and PreTrial Order 1255, hereby stipulate and agree to the voluntary dismissal of the above entitled action in its entirety, with prejudice, on the grounds and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs.}

^{Upon the reading and filing of the Stipulation of the parties hereto, through their respective counsel of record, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and this does order that the above-entitled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹⁴

^{Re: Marlys Farnes and Larry Lewis Farnes V. American Home Proucts Corp. (00-20868)}

^{Pursuant to written stipulation by and between the parties above-named, through their respective counsel of record, that the above-entitled action has been fully and finally compromised and settled upon the merits;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled action be, an the same is, hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹⁵

^{Re: Sandra Cherry V. American Home Products Corp & Wyeth-Ayerst Lab Co. (98-20044)}

^{COMES NOW Plaintiff, SANDRA CHERRY, by and through her undersigned counsel, and dismisses all claims in the above-captioned proceedings after settlement of the same WITH PREJUDICE.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹⁶

^{Re: David C. Struck V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-70886)}

^{The above entitled cause having been amicably adjusted between the parties hereto;}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto by their respective counsel that said cause shall and may be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any of the parties hereto.}

^{IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this dismissal resolves the last pending claim and closes the case.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹⁷

^{Re: Melody J. Heggeness V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (99-20582)}

^{Pursuant to written stipulation by and between the parties above-named, through their respective counsel of record, that the above-entitled action has been fully and finally compromised and settled upon the merits;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the above-entitled action be, and the same is, hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs.}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹⁸

^{Re: Brett Loy Dusenberry, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (00-20867)}

^{Pursuant to written stipulation by and between the parties above-named, through their respective counsel of record, that the above-entitled action has been fully and finally compromised and settled upon the merits;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the above-entitled action be, and the same is, hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs}

^1-8-2001

¹⁶¹⁹

^{Re: Release and Use of Funds - FILED UNDER SEAL (waiting for un-redacted documents)}

^{Upon consideration of PMC=s motion for Release and Use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esq., Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion os GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esq. is directed to make payment on invoices totaling One Hundred Thousand One Hundred Seventy Dollars and Twenty Six Cents ($100,170.26) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number: #031-201-457 and account number: #2030000337576}

^1-9-2001

¹⁶²⁰

^{Re: Kathryn Skibniewski V. American Home Products, Inc., et al. (99-20830)}

^{It is ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion (#202151) for extension of time is DENIED AS MOOT}

^1-9-2001

¹⁶²¹

^{Re: Melnda Johnson V. Gate Pharm., et al. (99-20122)}

^{It is ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion (#202108) to compel discovery and to extend discovery deadlines is DENIED AS MOOT.}

^1-9-2001

¹⁶²²

^{Re: Marilyn Leinenbach, et al. V. American Home Products Inc., et al. (00-20769)}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the time for Defendant Les Laboratories Servier to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to Tuesday, May 8, 2001}

^1-9-2001

¹⁶²³

^{Re: Susan Storey V. Wyeth-Labs, Inc., et al. (00-20811)}

^{THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff=s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Designate Case Specific Experts, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is:}

^{ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff=s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Designate Case Specific Experts is granted and the deadline for the filing of such case-specific expert reports is extended to January 15, 2001}

^1-10-2001

¹⁶²⁴

^{Re: Jana L. Harris V. American Home Products Corporation (99-20186)}

^{Presently before the court is a Motion filed December 8, 2000 by the plaintiff seeking a ruling on its= Motion to Remand which was previously presented to this court. In Pretrial Order No. 1533 dated December 7, 2000 the court ruled on the plaintiffs= Motion to Remand and denied the same. The present Motion is therefore Moot.}

^1-11-2001

¹⁶²⁵

^{Re: Monique Hernandez V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc. (98-20122)}

^{And now, this 11th day of January, 2001, it is Ordered that Plaintiff=s motion to remand, docket no. 200250 ad plaintiffs= motion for class certification, docket number 200291 are hereby marked Withdrawn.}

^1-11-2001

¹⁶²⁶

^{Re: Deborah Liddell V. A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (00-20743)}

^{And now, to wit, this 11th day of January, 2001, upon consideration of the motion of Lukins & Annis, P.S., Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P., and Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. To withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs (docket #202286), It is ordered that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions - See PTO for conditions.}

^1-11-2001

¹⁶²⁷

^{Re: Sheila Walters V. American Home Products, et al. (99-20538)}

^{And now this 11th day of January, 2001, it is ordered that the captioned case is Dismissed with Prejudice, in accordance with plaintiff=s request for dismissal.}

^1-11-2001

¹⁶²⁸

^{And now this 11th day of January, 2001, at a hearing held on January 10, 2001, the court ruled as follows:}

^{1. AHP Defendants= Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations from Complaint in HMO Louisiana, Inc., Civ. No. 00-20242 (Doc. # 202042) is Granted.}

^{2. HMO Louisiana=s Motion to Stay Local Rule 23.1 Class Certification Briefing in HMO Louisiana, Inc., Civ. No. 00-20242 (Doc. # 202144 is Denied as Moot.}

^{3. AHP=s Motion for Protective Order in HMO Louisiana, Inc., Civ. No. 00-20242 (Doc. # 202041) is Withdrawn.}

^{4. HMO Louisiana=s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Phentermine Defendants in HMO Louisiana, Inc., Civ. No. 00-20242 (Doc. # 201649) is referred to Special Master Gregory Miller.}

^{5. AHP=s Motion to Dismiss in Phillips, Civ. No. 99-20398 (Doc. # 202152) is Withdrawn.}

^{6. Arthur Levy, M.D.=s Motion for Summary Judgment in Brewer, Civ. No. 99-20809 (Doc. # 202225) is Granted.}

^{7. Plaintiff=s Motion to Seek a Determination of the Application of the Plaintiffs= Management Committee=s Common Fund Fee on a Particular Action in Hogg, 98-20512 (Doc. # 202283) is Withdrawn.}

^{8. Plaintiffs= Motions for remand to state court in: Kelly (Raymond), Civ. No. 99-20695; Kelly (Richard), Civ. No. 99-20706; Nash, Civ. No. 99-20712; O=Sullivan, 99-20708; Walker, Civ. No. 99-20701; Tanquay, Civ. No. 99-20717; Hanks, Civ. No. 99-20691; Newman, Civ. No. 99-20699; Rydell, Civ. No. 99-20718; Durant, Civ. No. 99-20705; Clep, Civ. No. 99-20702; Wilson, Civ. No. 99-20680 will be heard at the February Status Conference.}

^{9. Plaintiff=s Motion to Remand in Deramus, Civ. No. 99-20397 is Denied.}

^{10. Plaintiffs= Motion to Remand in Smith, Civ. No. 98-20575 (Doc. # 201032) is Denied. Defendant Rogersville Discount Drugs= Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 200983) in Smith, Civ. No. 98-20575 is Granted.}

^{11. Plaintiffs= Motion to Remand in Belk, et al., Civ. No. 00-20649 is Denied as Moot.}

^{12. Plaintiff=s Motion to Remand to Arizona State Court in Hernandez, Civ. No. 98-20122 (Doc. No. 200250) is Withdrawn.}

^{13. Plaintiffs= Motion to Remand in Foreman, Civ. No. 00-20056 is Withdrawn.}

^{14. Plaintiff=s Motion to Consolidate in Heller, Civ. No. 98-20416 (Doc. # 201055) is Granted, without prejudice to defendants to seek relief from the Special Discovery Master regarding the discovery schedules.}

^{15. Lu-Jean Feng, M.D.=s Motion for a Protective Order in Burns, Civ. No. 99-20333 (Doc. # 202240) is withdrawn.}

^{16. Plaintiff=s Motion to Join Parties Defendant and to Remand in Blaine, Civ. No. 99-20089 (Doc. # 200952) is Denied.}

^{17. The next status conference will be held on February 8, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-B, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.}

^1-12-2001

¹⁶²⁹

^{It is Ordered that Tuttle V. American Home Products, et al., CA 00-20470 and Mathis V. American Home Products, CA 00-20726 are hereby Dismissed With Prejudice for failure to comply with the fact sheet requirements set forth by the court in PreTrial Order No. 22, as stated at a Show Cause Hearing held in open court on January 10, 2001 pursuant to PreTrial Order No. 1569.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶³⁰

^{Re: Jackie Phillips and Lyle Phillips V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (00-21035)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore,}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co., Inc.,; American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, a Division of AHP corp, be are hereby dismissed, with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶³¹

^{Re: Marceline Frehner V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al. (99-20671)}

^{Based upon the stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs= claims against A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Co.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, a Division of American Home products Corp., be and are hereby dismissed, with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶³²

^{Re: Linda Smith V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (00-20472)}

^{Comes Now, the Plaintiff, Linda Smith, and dismisses the above-entitled cause with prejudice regarding the claims in this lawsuit.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶³³

^{Re: William Johnson V. American Home Products, et al. (00-20496)}

^{Plaintiff William Johnson, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, voluntarily dismisses his claims as to all defendants with prejudice.}

^{THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff William Johnson=s claims as to all defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the refilling of the same.}

^{The parties are to bear their own costs.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶³⁴

^{Re: Barry Smyser and Audrey Smyser V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., et al. (99-20105)}

^{Plaintiffs Barry Smyser and Audrey Smyser, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, voluntarily dismiss their claims as to all defendants with prejudice.}

^{THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiffs Barry and Audrey Smyser=s claims as to all defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the refiling of the same.}

^{The parties are to bear their own costs.}

^1-16-01

¹⁶³⁵

^{Re: Ruth E. Brower and Dennis Brower V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al. (99-20137)}

^{Plaintiff Ruth E. Brower and Dennis Brower, pursuant to the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, voluntarily dismisses their claims as to all defendants with prejudice.}

^{THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiffs Ruth E. Brower and Dennis Brower=s claims as to all defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the refiling of the same.}

^{The parties are to bear their own costs.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶³⁶

^{Re: Carol Menor and Dennis Manor V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, et al. (99-20387)}

^{Plaintiff Carol Menor and Dennis Menor, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, voluntarily dismiss their claims as to all defendants with prejudice.}

^{THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiffs Carol and Dennis Menor=s claims as to all defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the refiling of the same.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶³⁷

^{Re: Rene c. Hank V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., et al. (00-20205)}

^{Plaintiff Rene C. Hank, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, voluntarily dismisses her claims as to all defendants with prejudice.}

^{THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff Rene C. Hank=s claims as to all defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the refiling of the same. The parties are to bear their own costs.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶³⁸

^{Re: Herbert McKnight V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., et al. (00-20047)}

^{Plaintiff Herbert McKnight, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, voluntarily dismisses his claims as to all defendants with prejudice.}

^{THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff Herbert McKnight=s claims as to all defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the refiling of the same. The parties are to bear their own costs.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶³⁹

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

^{Plaintiffs Loretta Mersiovsky and Stanley R. Mersiovsky, pursuant to the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, voluntarily dismiss their claims as to all defendants with prejudice.}

^{THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiffs loretta Mersiovsky and Stanley R. Mersiovsky=s claims as to all defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the refiling of the same.}

^{The parties are to bear their own costs.}

^1-16-2001

¹⁶⁴⁰

^{Re: Denise Benoit, Mark Benoit and Dylan Benoit (minor) V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., et al. (99-20746)}

^{Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all parties by their respective counsel hereby stipulate that this action, including all claims asserted therein, be dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any party and with all rights of appeal waived.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁴¹

^{Re: Judith Boulais, et al. V. American Home Products Corp., and Wyeth-Ayerst Lab., a division of American Home Products Corp. (00-20147)}

^{Upon consideration of the Consent Motion of Defendants AHP and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division for Leave of court to Depose Samuel M. Green, MD, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 30(a)(2), it is hereby}

^{ORDERED that Defendants= Motion is GRANTED. Defendants are hereby GRANTED leave of court to depose Samuel M. Green, MD (federal inmate register no. 43478-083) on the grounds of the Federal Correctional Institution, Morgantown, West Virginia, or any other Federal Correctional Institute where he may be confined, at a time and date to be arranged with the appropriate Federal Correctional Institute officials.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁴²

^{Re: Connie Watson, et al., V. American Home Products Corp., et al. (01-20009)}

^{It is ORDERED that the above captioned case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, in accordance with an order entered on December 26, 2000 by Wiley Y. Daniel, U.S. District Judge in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁴³

^{Re: Carl Kelsay V. American Home Products Corp. and its division Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.; A.H. Robins Co. (00-20461)}

^{JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Carl Kelsay, and dismisses the above-entitled cause with prejudice regarding the claims made in this lawsuit.}

^{Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of January, 2001. -Carl Kelsay}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁴⁴

^{Re: Mary McGuire V. American Home Products Corp. (00-20613)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing.}

^{IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorney=s fees and costs.}

^{STIPULATION FOR JUDGEMENT OF DISMISSAL}

^{This case having been fully compromised and settled,}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective attorneys of records, that this case and Plaintiff=s Complaint and all claims contained therein be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁴⁵

^{Re: Judy Torkelson V. American Home Products Corp.; a foreign corp., Wyeth Labs., Inc., a foreign corp., and A.H. Robins Co., Inc., a foreign corp. (99-20401)}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing.}

^{IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^{STIPULATION FOR JUDGEMENT OF DISMISSAL}

^{This case is been fully comprised and settled,}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective attorneys of records, that this case and Plaintiff=s Complaint and all claims contained therein be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁴⁶

^{Re: Julee Montgomery V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20109)}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing.}

^{IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^{STIPULATION FOR JUDGEMENT OF DISMISSAL}

^{This case has been fully compromised and settled,}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by and between parties hereto, by and through their respective attorneys of records, that this case and Plaintiff=s Complaint and all claims contained therein be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁴⁷

^{Re: Melissa Reisbick V. American Home Products Corp. (00-20932)}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing,}

^{IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought forth by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^{STIPULATION FOR JUDGEMENT OF DISMISSAL}

^{This case having been fully compromised and settled,}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by and between parties hereto, by and through their respective attorneys of records, that this case and Plaintiff=s Complaint and all claims contained therein be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁴⁸

^{Re: Donna Roy and Donald Roy V. American Home Products Corp. (00-20324)}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing,}

^{IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^{STIPULATION FOR JUDGEMENT OF DISMISSAL}

^{This case having been fully compromised and settled,}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by and between parties hereto, by and through their respective attorneys of records , that this case and Plaintiff=s Complaint and all claims contained therein be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁴⁹

^{Re: Patricia Avila V. American Home Products Corp.; A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Lab. Co.; and Claudia Goulston, MD. (00-20179)}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing,}

^{IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^{STIPULATION FOR JUDGEMENT OF DISMISSAL}

^{This case having been fully compromised and settled,}

^{IT IS STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective attorneys of records, that this case and Plaintiff=s Complaint and all claims contained therein be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵⁰

^{Re: Doris and Adam Bradley V. American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Company, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., and Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (99-20569)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵¹

^{Re: Lenora Dantas V. American Home Products Corporation (00-20923)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵²

^{RE: Thomas Gleicher V. American Home Products Corporation (00-20949)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵³

^{Re: Beverly Granato V. American Home Products Corporation (00-20919)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵⁴

^{Re: Linvia Kaumanns V. American Home Products Corporation (00-20840)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵⁵

^{Re: Joel L. Simpson V. American Home Products (00-20992)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵⁶

^{Re: Norma Smith V. American Home Products (00-20950)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵⁷

^{Re: Denise Sander V. American Home Products (00-20865)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵⁸

^{Re: Ruby Tippey V. American Home Products Corporation; A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (99-20400)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁵⁹

^{Re: Deborah Waggoner V. American Home Products (00-20291)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁶⁰

^{Re: Mary Jane Ward V. American Home Products (00-20841)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁶¹

^{Re: Mayola Williams V. American Home Products Corporation and Michael E. Carroll, M.D. (00-20959)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁶²

^{Re: Peggy Ann Wittkop V. American Home Products Corporation; and Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (00-20193)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-22-2001

¹⁶⁶³

^{Re: Rachell Brockett-Bell V. American Home Products Corporation, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company; and Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. (00-20204)}

^{Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all named defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^1-23-2001

¹⁶⁶⁴

^{Re: Ellen & Charles Brockett and Sheryl Meier-Holland V. American Home Products, Corporation (00-20574) (00-20612)}

^{For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1. Shepard=s Motion to Dismiss if GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The claims against Shepard are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Shepard shall not raise the statute of limitations as defense if this case is refiled:}

^{2. Hale=s Motion to DISMIS is GRANTED. The claims against Hale are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Hale shall not raise the statute of limitations as a defense if this case if refiled; and}

^{3. Plaintiffs= requests to remand are DENIED.}

^1-23-2001

¹⁶⁶⁵

^{Re: Sheila Brown V. American Home Products (99-20593)}

^{ORDER ESTABLISHING A LIMIT ON FEES FOR RETRIEVAL AND COPYING OF MEDICAL RECORDS.}

^{AND NOW, this 23rd day of January 2001, upon request of the AHP Settlement Trust, the Court having found that:}

^{1. The Nationwide Class Action Settlement with American Home Products Corporation (the ASettlement@), is intended to benefit persons alleged to have been injured by the ingestion of the diet drugs Pondimin and/or Redux:}

^{2. It is in the interest of justice to avoid unnecessary costs being incurred by the AHP Settlement Trust that may limit the intended befefit to said class members, and any excessive costs incurred by the AHP Settlement Trust may limit the benefit to class members;}

^{3. Records retrieval fees charged by the medical records custodians are not standardized;}

^{4. The Secretary of Health for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has established a limit on records retrieval and copying fees pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. 6152 which provides a useful guide for limits on such fees for this matter;}

^{5. The Trust=s research has disovered that the customary amounts charged for copying videotapes and/or disks is approximately $25.00 to $35.00.}

^{IT IS ORDERED that no person or entity from whom medical records are sought by the AHP Settlement Trust may charge a fee in excess of $15.39 for the search and retrieval of records. Additionally, amounts charged for copying shall not exceed the following:}

^{Amount charged per page for pages 1-20: $10.3}

^{Amount charged per page for pages 21-60: $0.77}

^{Amount charged per page for pages 61-end: $0.26}

^{Amount charged per page for microfilm copies: $1.54}

^{These amounts may be revised annually upon motion of the AHP Settlement Trust to reflect any adjustments made by the Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. 6152. The Trust will reimburse up to the maximum amount of $35.00 for the copying of videotapes and/or disks submitted to the AHP Settlement Trust in support of a Claim for Benefits.}

^1-23-2001

¹⁶⁶⁶

^{Re: Alberta C. Mathis, R.N. V. American Home Products (98-20668)}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), the parties, by their respective counsel, stipulate that the captioned matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice.}

^1-23-2001

¹⁶⁶⁷

^{Re: Penny Warren V. American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., John Doe and Jane Doe (99-20787)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT; this 23rd day of January, 2001, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the Penny Warren action have been resolved and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1 (b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ORDEREDthat the listed action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^1-23-2001

¹⁶⁶⁸

^{Re: Cathy Strait and Steven Strait V. American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., d/b/a Medeva Pharmaceuticals, fisons Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., John Doe No. 1, R.PH., John Doe No. 2, R.PH., John Doe No. 3, R.PH., John Doe No. 4, R.PH. (00-20256)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT: This 23rd day of January, 2001, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the listed action have been resolved and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisios of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ORDERED that the listed action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of cousnel without costs.}

^1-23-2001

¹⁶⁶⁹

^{Re: THIS ORDER RELATES TO THE CASES LISTED ON EXHIBIT A}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT: This 23rd day of January, 2001, it having been reported taht the issues between the parties listed has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure fo this Court, it is ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement fo counsel without costs.}

^{Kayleen Beebe (98-20382), Linda Birchell (99-20026), Janet Birnkrant (98-20459), Ronnie Cadam (98-20529), Jean Carr (98-20542), Linda Cruse (99-20081), Janice Dunkley (99-20664), Gail Ganong (99-20493), Vivian Garcia (99-20468), Mary Harboway (00-20088), Joyce Hardman (99-20244), Carol Hastings (98-20572), Jan Hortman (98-20629), Janae Jackson (98-20469), Mariam Kelson (99-20360), Joyce Knox (98-20631), Linda Lee (99-20402), Julie Mattinson (98-20543), Melissa Michael (99-20080), Debra Nelson (99-20362), Dennis Nicholson (99-20403), Lonna Pelon (99-20047), Danielle Pelletier (99-20460), Ida Slaymaker (99-20349), Darlene Steele (699-20666), Jacqueline Steffes (98-20210), Karen Timothy (99-20563), Dorene Vercimak (99-20461), Mary Wagner (99-20678), Helen Warnock (99-20669), Barbara Wood (98-20482), Jodi Wright (99-20393).}

^1-23-2001

¹⁶⁷⁰

^{Re: All Actions}

^{FILED UNDER SEAL}

^{AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiffs= Management Committee=s Motion for Release And use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esquire, Escrow Agent, it si hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esquire, is directed to make payment on invoices totaling Three Hundred Ten Thousand Three Hundred Dollars and Seventy Two Cents ($310,300.72) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number: #031-201-457 and account number: #2030000337576.}

^1-23-2001

¹⁶⁷¹

^{Re: All Actions}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 23rd dy of January , 2001, IT IS ORDERED that a hearing concerning the Plaintiffs= Management Committee=s Emergency Motion For Order To Show Cause That The Preservation Depositions Can Be Used In All Proceedings Involving The MDL In Accordance With The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be held on January 29th, 2001 at 10:00a.m in Courtroom 17-B, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106}

^1-30-2001

¹⁶⁷²

^{Re: Mark Crescentini V. American Home Products Corp., et al (1999-20193)}

^{STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 41 (A)(1)}

^{It is hereby Stipulated by and between counsel that the above-referenced action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41 (A)(1).}

^1-30-2001

¹⁶⁷³

^{Re: Janet K. Gardner and Gary L. Gardner V. American Home Products Corp., et al (1999-20407)}

^{STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 41 (A)(1)}

^{It is hereby Stipulated by and between counsel that the above-referenced action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to FRCP 41 (A)(1).}

^1-30-2001

¹⁶⁷⁴

^{Re: Priscilla LaVon Umberger V. American Home Products Corp. (2000-20976)}

^{STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by undersigned counsel for all parties that the above-entitled case is hereby dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, each party to bear its own costs and attorney fees.}

^1-30-2001

¹⁶⁷⁵

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^ORDER

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 30th day of Jan., 2001, upon consideration of the Thirty First Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (10/01/00 through 10/31/00), 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 $45,444.16 for the period from 10/1/00 through 10/31/00, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^1-30-2001

¹⁶⁷⁶

^{Re: Marsha Jones, et al V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., et al (1998-20383)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 30th day of January, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend Petition (Doc. # 202226) is DENIED for failure to submit a proposed form of order which would grant the relief sought. See Local R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a) (mandating that every motion shall be accompanied by proposed form of order). The court notified Plaintiffs= counsel of this requirement some time ago, but has not received a proposed order.}

^1-30-2001

¹⁶⁷⁷

^{Re: Conson Nowak V. American Home Products Corp., et al (2000-21018)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 30th day of January, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Substitution of Parties (Doc. # 202258) is DENIED for failure to submit a proposed form of order which would grant the relief sought. See Local R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a) (mandating that every motion shall be accompanied by proposed form of order). The court notified Plaintiff=s counsel of this requirement some time ago, but has since received only an Amended Notice of Filing, not a proposed order.}

^1-31-2001

¹⁶⁷⁸

^{Re: Mary Wolcott V. American Home Products Corp., et al (1999-20129)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 31st day of January, 2001, upon consideration of plaintiff Mary Wolcott=s (APlaintiff@) Motion to Set Aside Dismissal of the Complaint, and for Reconsideration of the court=s Order Conditioning the Set Aside of Dismissal on Medical Support and Assessing Fees Against Plaintiff=s Counsel If the Defense Opts to Undertake Independent Medical and Psychiatric Examinations Before Responding to the Instant Motion (AMotion to Set Aside and for Recons.@), Doc. No. 201269), and defendant American Home Products Corp.=s opposition thereto, Doc. No. 201297, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (CASES CITED ATTATCHED)}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁷⁹

^{Re: Scott E. Johnson V. American Home Products, et al (2000-21043)}

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of Feb., 2001, it is ORDERED that the application for extension of time is GRANTED.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸⁰

^{Re: Margie Louis, et al. V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharm., Inc., et al (2000-21007)}

^{PROPOSED ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT SEATRACE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.}

^{This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs= motion to dismiss Defendant Seatrace Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from this action. The Court find that the motion is well taken, and it is, therefore,}

^{CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Plaintiffs= claims against Defendant Seatrace Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are hereby dismissed with prejudice and each party shall bear their own costs.}

^{SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this 1st Day of Feb., 2001.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸¹

^{Re: Annette Carbo V. American Home Products (2000-20700)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1st day of February, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.}

^{Plaintiff=s Motion seeks to amend the Complaint by A...deleting Count Three (Breach of Express warranty) and deleting all prayers for and references to any claim for loss of earnings capacity.@ Attached to the Motion is a form of First Amended Complaint to which the Motion is addressed.}

^{The proposed Amended Complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires that a pleading setting forth a claim for relief shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸²

^{Re: Judith Katz V. American Home Products (2000-20853)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1st day of February, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.}

^{Plaintiff=s Motion seeks to amend the Complaint by A...deleting Count Four (Loss of Consortium), deleting all prayers for and references to any claim for loss of earnings and earning capacity, and by correcting the approximate dates the Plaintiff used fenfluramine.@ Attached to the Motion is a form of First Amended Complaint to which the Motion is addressed.}

^{The proposed Amended Complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires that a pleading setting forth a claim for relief shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸³

^{Re: Elizabeth Allman V. American Home Products Corp. (2000-21045)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1st day of February, 2001, upon consideration of Elizabeth Allman=s Motion to Amend Summons and Complaint, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.}

^{SO ORDERED. (CITED CASES ATTACHED TO ORDER)}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸⁴

^{Re: Linda Vial V. American Home Products Corp. (2000-21046)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1st day of February, 2001, upon consideration of Linda Vial=s Motion to Amend Summons and Complaint, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.}

^{Plaintiff seeks to add Dean Health Plan, Inc. (the ASubragor@) as a party defendant and subrogated party. Plaintiff bases her motion on an Affidavit suggesting that Wisconsin Statute 803.03 (2) requires a party asserting a claim based upon subrogation to join the subroger. Plaintiff and the Subrogor are citizens of the State of Wisconsin. Joinder of the Subrogor would destroy diversity of citizenship and deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.}

^{Plaintiff seeks to join the Subragor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Rule 19, however, contemplates that joinder destroying subject matter jurisdiction should not be permitted unless the party to be joined is indispensable to the resolution of all claims and a failure to join would prejudice it. The court does not find that the Subragor is an indispensable party. The Subrogor=s interest is fully protected: Plaintiff and Defendant are on notice of its interest and it can apply to the court to protect its interest at such time as that interest matures.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸⁵

^{THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1st day of February, 2001, upon consideration of AHP Corp.=s motions to exclude the expert Testimony of John J. La Puma, MD (Doc. # 201153), Colin M. Bloor, MD (Doc. # 201771), James Oury, MD (Doc. # 201153), John Gueriguian, MD (Doc. # 202165), Arthur H. Hayes, MD (Doc. # 202164), Robyn J. Barst, MD (Doc. # 201797), Stuart Rich, MD (Doc. # 201818), and Barry Sears, Ph.D. (Doc. # 202166); the Plaintiffs= responses thereto; and AHP=s and Plaintiffs= Pretrial Order No. 1468 memoranda and accompanying appendices, IT IS ORDERED that:}

^{1. The motions to exclude the expert testimony of John J. La Puma, MD, Colin M. Bloor, MD, and James Oury, MD are GRANTED.}

^{2. To the extent that Drs. Gueriguian, Hayes, Barst, Rich, and Sears proffer expert opinions as to the intent of AHP and/or beliefs of FDA officials as evidenced by the words and conduct of their agents, servants or employees, the motions are GRANTED. However, this ruling does not in any way preclude the introduction of otherwise admissible evidence of the intent or beliefs of AHP or FDA personnel;}

^{3. To the extent that AHP challenges: (a) the introduction of certain documents through the reading of them into the record; (b) the manner or context in which a particular witness uses the term Aserious;@ (c) the injection of hearsay into trial deposition testimony; and (d) testimony as to matters not timely disclosed in an expert report, the motions are DENIED without prejudice to raise those challenges in the remand courts;}

^{4. To the extent that AHP challenges the admissibility of the videotape of surgery performed by Dr. oury on a patient who later became a plaintiff in this litigation, AHP=s motion to exclude Dr. Oury=s testimony is DENIED without prejudice to raise the challenge in the remand courts;}

^{5. To the extent that AHP challenges: (a) Dr. Gueriguian=s expert testimony about the standard of care in the pharmaceutical industry regarding the manner in which certain information should be communicated to the FDA; and (b) what FDA officials would have done with certain additional information such as particular adverse event reports, the motion to exclude Dr. Gueriguian=s testimony is DENIED.}

^{6. To the extent that Dr. Gueriguian testifies: (a) that patients should be able to read and understand labeling in order to make informed decisions; (b) about whether AHP=s failure to report certain information to the FDA led to more suffering and deaths of patients who were prescribed Pondimin and Redux; and (c) that Dr. Bloor=s opinions interpreting the rat slides from study 1781 vindicate his conclusion that AHP should have performed additional testing, AHP=s motion to exclude Dr. Gueriguian=s testimony is GRANTED;}

^{7. To the extent that opinions are proffered by Drs. Barst or Rich concerning: (a) the extent to which there was legal compliance with any laws or regulations governing the preparation or content of labeling or other warnings furnished by AHP in conjunction with the marketing of the diet drugs at issue; or (b) the efficacy of pondimin and Redux for treating obesity, the motions are GRANTED;}

^{8. To the extent that AHP challenges opinions by Drs. Barst and Rich concerning the medical accuracy of Pondimin and Redux labeling at a particular point in time with regard to the risks developing PH or PPH, the motions to exclude the testimony of Drs. Barst and Rich are DENIED;}

^{9. To the extent that AHP challenges Dr. Sears= testimony concerning the effectiveness of Pondimin, Redux, or other drugs for treating obesity, the motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Sears is DENIED.}

^{10. To the extent that AHP challenges Dr. Sears= testimony concerning: (a) whether Redux met efficacy standards for approval of anti-obesity medications; and (b) AHP=s marketing and disclosure obligations, the motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Sears is GRANTED.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the extent to which any matters in items 2 through 9 above permit the rendering of opinions by Drs. Gueriguian, Hayes, Barst, Rich, and Sears, such allowances shall be conditioned upon a determination by the trial court that such matters are relevant and that the evidence upon which any opinion stands be received into evidence at the trial.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸⁶

^{Re: Marsha & Brian Jones V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., a Delaware Corp.,; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., A Delaware Corp.; American Home Products Corp., a Delaware Corp.; an Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, inc.; a Delaware Corp. (2000-21081)}

^{Presently before the Court on this 1st day of Feb., 2001, is Plaintiff=s Request for Leave to Amend Petition, in which Plaintiff seeks to add a count of Misrepresentation and Fraud against the Defendants.}

^{The Motion is granted. The proffered First Amended and Substituted Petition for Injunctive Relief and Damages shall be filed this date. All shall be served within (7) days.}

^{IT IS SO ORDERED.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸⁷

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2001, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs= motion (#202136) for relief from Pretrial Order No. 1467 is DENIED AS MOOT.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸⁸

^{Re: Margaret Suazo and Clyde Suazo, wife and husband V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., Wyeth Labs., Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and John Does 1 through 50, Inclusive (2000-20177)}

^{ORDER CONFORMING CAPTION}

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of Feb., 2001, it is ORDERED that pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 1553 and upon Plaintiff=s motion, the caption herein is hereby conformed to read as follows:}

^{See above}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁸⁹

^{Re: Maurine Schuster and Reinhard Schuster, Wife and Husband V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., Wyeth Labs., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and John Does 1 through 50, Inclusive (2000-20143)}

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of Feb., 2001, it is ORDERED that pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 1553 and upon Plaintiffs= motion, the caption herein is hereby conformed to read as follows:}

^{See Above.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁹⁰

^{Re: Carole A. West and John West, Wife and Husband V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., Wyeth Labs., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and John Does 1 through 50, Inclusive (2000-20158)}

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of Feb., 2001, it is ORDERED that pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 1553 an upon Plaintiffs= motion, the caption herein is hereby conformed to read as follows:}

^{See above.}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁹¹

^{Re: Connie Yandell, et al. V. American Home Products, inc., et al. (1999-20866)}

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2001, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs= application (#202055) to dismiss without prejudice is DENIED for failure to submit a proposed form of order which would grant relief sought pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 34. See Local R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a) (mandating that every motion shall be accompanied by proposed form of order).}

^2-1-2001

¹⁶⁹²

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of Feb., 2001, it is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 78 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs= cases listed on Exhibit B shall be marked Aclosed@ by the Clerk of Court.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibits A and B are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits C through R of Decision and Recommendation No. 78.}

^{EXHIBITS A-R ATTACHED.}

^2-5-2001

¹⁶⁹³

^{Re: Sickles, et al. V. Fisons Corp., et al. (1998-20728)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 5th day of February, 2001, upon consideration of defendant Fisons Corp.=s Motion to Strike or, Alternatively, Preclude the Expert Testimony of John J. La Puma (Doc. # 202292) and this court=s ruling in Pretrial Order No. 1685, IT IS ORDERED that the said motion is GRANTED. The court hereby incorporates by reference its reasoning and ruling from Pretrial Order No. 1685, to wit, that the testimony of Dr. La Puma fails to meet the standard for admissibility of expert testimony provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 702.}

^2-5-2001

¹⁶⁹⁴

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 5th day of February, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that the following motions are DENIED AS MOOT:}

^{1. Plaintiffs= motion to remand in Zaborac, CA 99-20052;}

^{2. Plaintiffs= motion to remand in Stowe, CA 00-20701;}

^{3. Defendants Goldline Laboratories, Inc. and Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. motion for leave to amend their answers and assert cross-claims against Defendant Camall Co., Inc. and to commence Third-Party actions against Camall Co., Inc.;}

^{4. Plaintiff, Rehman=s motion to amend and remand CA # 98-20292, # 200732;}

^{5. Plaintiff, Slayton=s motion to amend and remand CA # 98-20288, # 200734;}

^{6. Phentermine defendants motion for reconsideration of order to amend CA # 98-20454, # 201112;}

^{7. DefendantTeva=s motion to strike plaintiff=s designation of Phentermine Experts in CA # 98-20575, # 201278;}

^{8. Plaintiff Cusimano=s motion to amend CA # 98-20701, # 201820;}

^{9. Plaintiff Bogden=s motion to amend CA # 99-20741, # 201895;}

^{10. AHP=s motion to strike Plaintiff=s Expert Dr. Aurthur Levene in CA # 99-20030 and 98-20665, # 202087;}

^{11. Plaintiff Dockter to remand and stay in CA # 98-20628;}

^{12. Defendants= motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement in 00-20750, # 202111; and}

^{13. Plaintiff Sickles= motion for a Protective Order in CA # 98-20728, # 202205.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Motions that AHP (# 201138-201143, 201160-201172, and 201174-201177) to preclude certain generic expert witnesses designated by the Phentermine Defendants are hereby marked WITHDRAWN.}

^2-7-2001

¹⁶⁹⁵

^{Re: Martha Lare, et al. V. American Home Products (01-20013)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT: This 7th day of February, 2001, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁶⁹⁶

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW TO WIT, this 8th day of February, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that the following motions are DENIED AS MOOT:}

^{1. Plaintiff=s motion to extend cut off dates in CA 00-20582, #202263;}

^{2. Plaintiff=s motion for extension of time in CA 98-20335, #201185 and 201225;}

^{3. Motion of Olinger for extension of time in CA 98-20518, #201183;}

^{4. Motion of Wegrynoski for extension of time in CA 98-20128, #201105;}

^{5. Plaintiff=s motion for extension to time in CA 00-20265, #201248; and}

^{6. Plaintiff=s motion for extension of time in 98-20124, #201186 and 201203.}

^2-8--2001

¹⁶⁹⁷

^{Re: Judy Hollingswort V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. Division of American Home Products Corp. (00-20732) Transfered from USDC of Western Ark., Fayetteville Division}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against American Home Products Corp. be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendants American Home Products Corp. and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of AHP Corp. each shall bear their own costs.}

^2-8--2001

¹⁶⁹⁸

^{Re: Betty I. McMillan V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. Division of American Home Products Corp. (00-20411) Transferred from USDC for E.D. of Ark., Western Division}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against AHP Corp. and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of AHP Corp. be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendants AHP Corp. and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of AHP Corp. each shall bear their own costs.}

^2-8--2001

¹⁶⁹⁹

^{Re: Barbara Ledford V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. Division of AHP Corp and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (00-20793) Transferred from USDC for E.D. of Ark., Helena Division}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against AHP Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of AHP Corp., and A.H. Robins Co. be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendants AHP Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of AHP Corp. and A.H. Robins Co. each shall bear their own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰⁰

^{Re: Zada Boster V. American Home Products Corp. (00-20439) Transferred from USDC for W. District of Ark., Fort Smith Division}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action against AHP Corp. be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendant AHP Corp. each shall bear their own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰¹

^{Re: Earlene Braden V. American Home Products Corp. and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (99-20226) Transferred from the USDC for W. District of Ark., Fayetteville Division}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against AHP Corp. and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendants AHP Corp. and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. each shall bear their own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰²

^{Re: Judith Boulais V. American Home Products Corp. (00-20147)}

^ORDER

^{AND NOW TO WIT this 8th day of Feb., 2001, upon consideration of the Motion for Substitution of Counsel for the Plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion for Substitution of Counsel for the Plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED and that Aaoron M. Levine and the law firm of Levine and Associates and all the attorneys within the firm who have appeared as counsel for plaintiff in the above captioned case shall be deemed to have withdrawn their appearances as counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Miller J. Miller and Kenneth W. Smith, Miller & Associates, 809 Cameron St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314 are recognized as the substituted counsel for plaintiff and that their notice of appearance on behalf of plaintiff is recognized of record in this litigation.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰³

^{Re: Lynette Palmer V. American Home Products Corp., et al (98-20508)}

^{STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL}

^{COME NOW Plaintiff Lynette Palmer and Defandant, National Weight Loss Centers of Alabama, Inc., by and through their respective undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(ii) and files this, their Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal, and state that claims in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter are hereby dismissed by agreement, and with prejudice as to National Weight Loss Centers of Alabama, Inc., with each party to bear its own costs and counsel fees.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of National Weight Loss Centers of Alabama, Inc., against whom the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety upon the Court=s approval of this stipulation. The claims of Plaintiff against Defendant, American Home Products Corp. are not affected by this Stipulation. All other Defendants originally named in the Complaint have been dismissed from this action.}

^{SO ORDERED AND ADJUSTED.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰⁴

^{Re: Helen Harris V. William Dixon (00-21113)}

^{NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{Helen Harris, by and through her attorneys, Thomas F. Yost, Jr. and Thomas F. Yost, Jr., P.a., hereby voluntarily dismisses with prejudice, and for reasons, states:}

^{1. That the Plaintiff did not effectuate the initial opt out of the national settlement involving the diet drug litigation.}

^{2. That the Plaintiff, due to a recent echocardiogram which shows an improvement in her condition wishes to avail herself of the benefits of the national settlement.}

^{3. For such other and further relief as the nature of her cause may require.}

^{WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that her case be dismissed with prejudice.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰⁵

^{Re: Eileen S. Collins & William Collins V. American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins, Co., Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division, Les Laboratories Servier, and Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (98-20299)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1705}

^{Pursuant to and in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(ii), the Plaintiffs, Eileen S. Collins and William Collins and the Defendants, AHP Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division, Les Laboratories Servier, and Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., hereby stipulate that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with costs to be paid per agreement of the parties. This stipulation meets all of the applicable requirements of Pretrial Order Nos. 445 and 680.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰⁶

^{Re: Kimberly Worley V. American Home Products Corp., and its division Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories; A.H. Robins Co. (00-20941)}

^{JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Kimberly Worley, and dismisses the above-entitled cause with prejudice regarding the claims made in this lawsuit.}

^{Respectfully submitted this 8th day of January, 2001.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰⁷

^{Re: Barbara Kiser V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co. Division of American Home Products Corp. (2000-20093) Transferred from USDC for W.D. of Ark., Fayetteville Division}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against American Home Products Corp. and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products Corp. be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendants American Home Products Corp and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products Corp. each shall bear their own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰⁸

^{Re: Pauline Thomas V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. Division of American Home Products Corp., and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (2000-20216) Transferred from USDC ED of Ark.}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of American Home Products Corp., and A.H. Robins Co. be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendants AHP Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of AHP, and A.H. Robins Co. each shall bear their own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷⁰⁹

^{Re: Patricia Kohl V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. Division of AHP Corp., and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (1999-20566) Transferred from USDC for W.D. of Ark., Harrison Division}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of AHP Corp., and A.H. Robins Co. be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendants AHP Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Lbs Division of AHP Corp., and A.H. Robins Co. each shall bear their own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷¹⁰

^{Re: Sue Hightower V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co. Division of AHP Corp., and A.H. Robins Co., Inc. (1998-20729) Transferred from USDC for E.D. of Ark., Northern Division}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that this action as against American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of AHP Corp., and A.H. Robins Co. be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendants AHP Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Division of AHP Corp., and A.H. Robins Co. each shall bear their own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷¹²

^{Re: Sherri Graham V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., a Delaware Corp., American Home Products Corp., a Delaware Corp.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.; Interneuron Pharm., Inc., and John Does 1 through 10 (199-20223)}

^{Pursuant to written stipulation by and between the parties above-named, through their respective counsel of record, that the above-entitled action has been fully and finally compromised and settled upon the merits:}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the above-entitled action be, and the same is, hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷¹³

^{Re: Marilyn Miller V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., a Delaware Corp.; American Home Products Corp., a Delaware Corp.; and John Does 1 through 10}

^{ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{Pursuant to written stipulation by and between the parties above-named, through their respective counsel of record, that the above-entitled action has been fully and finally compromised and settled upon the merits:}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the above-entitled action be, and the same is, hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷¹¹

^{Re: Aileen Brosten V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., a Delaware Corp.; American Home Products Corp. a Delaware Corp.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co.; Interneuron Pharm., Inc., and John Does 1 through 10 (1999-20222)}

^{ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{Pursuant to written stipulation by and between the parties above-named, through their respective counsel of record, that the above-entitled action has been fully and finally compromised and settled upon the merits:}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the above-entitled action be, and the same is, hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷¹⁴

^{Re: Shelia Brown, et al V. American Home Products Corporation (1999-20593)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 8th day of February, 2001, upon consideration of the Motion of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. to Intervene (Doc. # 202282) and Allen Berger & Associates= Opposition thereto, IT IS ORDERED that the said motion is DENIED.}

^{Becnel=s firm was retained by Mary Green, an opt-out litigant, and claims to have done substantial work on her behalf before Green terminated the representation. Becnel requests: a declaration that he represented Green; that any check compensating her be retained by a third party pending resolution of this matter; that each attorney claiming to have represented her be contacted before attorneys= fees are taken from such checks; and that Becnel be awarded fees for his work.}

^{Green, like Becnel, is a Louisiana resident. Thus, there is no diversity of citizenship between the necessary parties to this subsidiary litigation. Accordingly, this court lacks subject matter jursidiction over the controversy between Becnel and his former client. See 28 U.S.C. 1332 (setting forth requirements of diversity jurisdiction).}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷¹⁵

^{Re: Cheryl Stringer, et al V. American Home Products Corporation, et al (2000-21001)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 8th day of February, 2001, upon consideration of the Motion of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. to Intervene (Doc. # 202294), IT IS ORDERED that said motion is DENIED.}

^{Becnel=s firm was retained by Cheryl Stringer, an opt-out litigant, and claims to have done substantial work on her behalf before Stringer terminated the representation. Becnel requests: a declaration that he represented Stringer; that any check compensating her by a third party pending resolution of this matter; that each attorney claiming to have represented her be contacted before attorneys= fees are taken from such checks; and that Becnel be awarded fees for his work.}

^{Stringer is a Mississippi resident. Becnel is a Louisiana resident. However, Stringer is now represented by Louisiana attorney Ronnie Glyn Penton. Because Becnel seeks entitlement to a check in which Penton might have an interest, the court cannot grant complete relief in Penton=s absence. To do so would be highly prejudicial to Penton. Thus, Penton is an indispensable party whose joinder would divest the court of diversity jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 (discussing standards for joinder of persons needed for just adjudication); 28 U.S.C. 1332 (setting forth requirements of diversity jurisdiction). Furthermore, the court is confident that Becnel has an adequate remedy in state court.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^2-8-2001

¹⁷¹⁶

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL}

^{AND NOW, this 8th day of Feb., 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiffs= Management Committee=s Motion for Release and Use Of Funds from MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esquire, Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esquire, is directed to make payment on invoices totaling One Hundred Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two Dollars and Forty-Seven Cents ($100,632.47) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number: #031-201-457 and account number: #2030000337576.}

^2-9-2001

¹⁷¹⁷

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 2001, at a hearing held on February 8, 2001, the court ruled as follows:}

^{1. Plaintiffs= motions for remand to state court in: Rydell, Civ. No. 99-20718l; Newman, Civ. No. 99-20699; Hanks, Civ. No. 99-20691; Tanguay, Civ. No. 99-20717; Walker, Civ. No. 99-20701; O=Sullivan, Civ. No. 99-20708; Nash, Civ. No. 99-20712; Kelly (Richard), Civ. No. 99-20706; Kelly (Raymond), Civ. No. 99-20695; Durant, Civ. No. 99-20705; Clep, Civ. No. 99-20702; Wilson, Civ. No. 99-20680 are hereby WITHDRAWN.}

^{2. Plaintiff=s Motion to Remand in Wilkinson, Civ. No. 00-201027. (Doc. # 202287) is hereby WITHDRAWN.}

^{3. AHP=s Motion to Compel in Poux, Civ. No. 99-20172 (Doc. # 202262) is WITHDRAWN.}

^{4. Plaintiff=s Motion to Remand in Wrinkle, Civ. No. 99-20653. (Doc. # 201516) is WITHDRAWN.}

^{5. Defendant Les Laboratoires Servier=s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non-convenient in Beach, Civ. No. 98-20611, Doc. # 200485; Dukes, Civ. No. 98-20772; and Snodgrass, Civ. No. 99-20039 are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.}

^{6. The next status conference will be held on April 4, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-B, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.}

^2-9-2001

¹⁷¹⁸

^{Re: Shelia Brown, et al V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 13th day of February, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that Court Approved Procedure (ACAP@) No. 1, attached hereto, is adopted and incorporated herein. CAP No. 1 shall be reflected on the court=s docket in the above captioned case. CAP No. 1 w/ exhibits attached to order.}

^2-14-2001

¹⁷¹⁹

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al. V. American Home Products Corp. (99-20593)}

^{AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2001, the Court having considered the Uncontested Joint Motion And Incorporated Brief For Approval Of Subrogation Settlement Agreements, which was filed by the parties in relation to the Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement with AHP, and which asks the court to approve of the terms of certian Subrogation Settlement Agreements reached with the Blue Cross Plans and deeming it just and proper to do so, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:}

^{1. The Subrogation Settlement Agreements are hereby APPROVED; and}

^{2. The AHP Settlement Trust shall comply iwht and be bound by the terms of the Subrogation Settlement Agreements.}

^2-14-2001

¹⁷²⁰

^{Re: Diane Francis Morgan and Richard Lance Morgan, Mary Sue Green; Sandra McIntyre and Bill McIntyre Virginia Zerban and David Gene Zerban V. American Home Products Corporation (00-20997)}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiffs against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^2-14-2001

¹⁷²¹

^{Re: Maxine Everley and Glenn M. Everley V. American Home Products Corporation (00-20874)}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiffs against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^2-14-2001

¹⁷²²

^{Re: Helene Jayne Johnston V. American Home Products Corporation (00-20879)}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiff against all defendants are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys= fees and costs.}

^2-14-2001

¹⁷²³

^{Re: Anna A. Bodgen V. American Home Products (99-20741)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 14th day of February, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that Pretrial Order No. 1694 is VACATED to the extent that it denied as moot plaintiff Anna A. Bodgen=s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 201895). Said motion shall remain pending on the court=s docket until further disposition.}

^2-15-2001

¹⁷²⁴

^{Re: Paulette Tate V. Dennis W. Remington, MD, et al (00-20251)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 15th day of February, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion and Stipulation for Dismissal is DENIED. The court is unwilling to grant such a motion without being informed of the status and/or identification of defendants Does I through X.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷²⁵

^{Re: Jeanette Campana V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., MCR/American Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Darryl D. Washington (00-20399)}

^{Upon reviewing the Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice filed by plaintiff, Jeanette Campana, for civil action number 00-20399, it is hereby ORDERED:}

^{1. The complaint in this action, bearing civil action number 00-20399, is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 21 (a) (2).}

^{2. Nothing in this order shall prejudice plaintiff=s ability to participate in the class action settlement should she so desire.}

^{3. Each party to bear its own fees and costs.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷²⁶

^{Re: Stephanie Jackson and Michael Jackson, individually and on behalf of their marital community V. American Home Products Corp.; A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth Labs., Inc.; Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and EON Labs. Manufacturing, Inc. (99-20016)}

^{STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective attorneys that all matters in controversy in the above action have been fully settled and compromised, and said action may be dismissed with prejudice and without cost to either party.}

^{DATED this 19th day of October, 2000.}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL}

^{THIS MATTER having come on for hearing in open court on stipulation of the parties and it appearing to the Court that all matters in controversy herein have been fully comprised and settled, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without cost to either party.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷²⁷

^{Re: Karen Armstrong, a single woman V. American Home Products Corp.; A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth Labs., Inc.; Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (00-20897)}

^{STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective attorneys that all matters in controversy in the above action have been fully settled and compromised, and said action may be dismissed with prejudice and without cost to either party.}

^{DATED this 19th day of October, 2000.}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL}

^{THIS MATTER having come on for hearing in open court on stipulation of the parties and it appearing to the Court that all matters in controversy herein have been fully compromised and settled, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without cost to either party.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷²⁸

^{Re: Sharon Myers and Jamie Myers, husband and wife V.American Home Products Corp.; A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth Labs., Inc.; Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and EON Labs Manufacturing, Inc.}

^{STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective attorneys that all matters in controversy in the above action have been fully settled and compromised, and said action may be dismissed with prejudice and without cost to either party.}

^{DATED this 19th day of October, 2000.}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL}

^{THIS MATTER having come on for hearing in open court on stipulation of the parties and it appearing to the Court that all matters in controversy herein have been fully compromised and settled, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without cost to either party.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷²⁹

^{Re: Debra Duty V. American Home Products Corp.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp., a Delaware Corp. (00-20334)}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL}

^{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 plaintiff, Debra Duty=s Amended Petition is dismissed, with prejudice, as to defendants, American Home Product Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp., with each party to pay their own costs.}

^{DATED this 29th day of August, 2000.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷³⁰

^{Re: Janine Gulizia V. American Home Products Corp.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp., a Delaware corp., A.H. Robins, Inc.; a Delaware corp., and Rugby Labs, a New York Corp. (00-20114)}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL}

^{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 plaintiff, Janine Gulizia=s Petition is dismissed, with prejudice, as to defendants, American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Division of American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., and Rugby Labs., with each party to pay their own costs.}

^{DATED this 29th day of August, 2000.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷³¹

^{Re: Lucile Peters, a single woman V. American Home Products Corp.; A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, Inc., a New York corp.; and Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a New York corp. (00-20744)}

^{STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL}

^{IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective attorneys that all matters in controversy in the above action have been fully settled and compromised, and said action may be dismissed with prejudice and without cost to either party.}

^{DATED this 19th day of October, 2000.}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL}

^{THIS MATTER having come on for hearing in open court on stipulation of the parties and it appearing to the Court that all matters in controversy herein have been fully compromised and settled, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without cost to either party.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷³²

^{Re: Mary Ann Gonsalves-Roen and Kevin Roen, individually and on behalf of their marital community, and Crystal Roen, a minor, by and through her mother and natural guardian, Mary Ann Gonsalves-Roen V. American Home Products Corp.; A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Wyeth Labs., Inc.; Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (00-20946)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{COME NOW the plaintiffs Mary Ann Gonsalves-Roen and Kevin Roen, individually and on behalf of their marital community, and Crystal Roen, a minor, by and through her mother, natural guardian, and guardian ad litem, Mary Ann Gonsalves-Roen, by and through their attorney of record, Michael Woerner of Keller Rohrback, L.L.P.; Defendants American Home Products Corp., A.H. Robins Co., Inc.; Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Wyeth Labs., Inc., by and through their attorney of record, Kathy A. Cochran of Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson; Defendant Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., by and through its attorneys of record, E. Pennock Gheen and Dan J. O=Keefe of Bullivant Houser Bailey; and Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., by and through its attorney of record, Phillip R. Meade of Merrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey, P.S., pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Pre-Trial Order 1255, hereby stipulate and agree to the voluntary dismissal of the above entitled action in its entirety, with prejudice, on the grounds and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs.}

^{DATED this 27th day of October, 2000.}

^{ORDER OF DISMISSAL}

^{Upon the reading and filing of the Stipulation of the parties hereto, through their respective counsel of record, and good cause appearing therefore;}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and this does order that the above-entitled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷³³

^{Re: Alma Neal V. American Home Products, et al (98-20337); and Thelma Schieffler V. American Home Products, et al (98-20537)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT: This 16th day of February, 2001, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1 (b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs. MICHAEL KUNZ, CLERK OF COURT}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷³⁴

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 16th day of February, 2001, it is ORDERED that in accordance with Pretrial Order Nos. 770 and 771, the Clerk is directed to terminate the defendants listed on the attached exhibits. EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO ORDER.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷³⁵

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 16th day of February, 2001, upon consideration of the request of counsel for plaintiffs in the cases listed below, IT IS ORDERED THAT the following cases are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:}

^{1. 98-20700 Lonna Deeter V.American Home Products, et al.}

^{2. 98-20723 Lois R. Crotty V. Wyeth-Ayerst Labrotories Co., et al.}

^{3. 98-20724 Barbara Hernandez V. American Home Products, Corp., et al.}

^{4. 98-20736 Nancy Donaldson V. American Home Products Corp., et al.}

^{5. 98-20764 Juanita Delcarlo V. American Home Products Corp., et al.}

^2-16-2001

¹⁷³⁶

^{Re: Julia Madole V. American Home Products, et al (98-20415)}

^{AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2001, it is ORDERED t}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷³⁷

^{Re: Annie C. Brunner, et al V. American Home Products Corporation (99-20629)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of Feb., 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiff, Annie C. Brunner, et al, named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiff and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷³⁸

^{Re: Dennis Irvin Johnson, et al V. American Home Products Corporation, et al (00-20961)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of Feb., 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that all the claims of Plaintiffs, Dennis Irvin Johnson, et al, named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared in the above-captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷⁴⁰

^{Re: Mary Carol Miles and Harold Miles V. American Home Products Corporation (00-21127)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of Feb., 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs Mary Carol Miles, in the complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety. Each party to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷⁴¹

^{Re: Janice S. Dueitt and Donald B. Dueitt V. American Home Products Corporation (99-20623)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs Janice S. Dueitt and Donald B. Dueitt, in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷⁴²

^{Re: Diane Griffin Flood, et al V. American Home Products Corporation (99-20392)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs, Diane Griffin Flood, et al, named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiff and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷⁴³

^{Re: Gwen Washington, et al V. American Home Products Corporation (00-21025)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of Feb., 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs, Milton Benson, Charlotte Brown, Sonia Burton, Barbara Chatman, Nancy Clem, Margaret Davis, Lori Epperson, Kathryn Evans, Mary Foster, Kristi Guthrie, Erica Harris, Geneva Heard, Patty Hinson, Charlene Jordan, Sherry Kelsoe, Mary Kinkle, Jennifer Mathis, Princess McCowan, Bruce Melvin, Sheila Melvin, Charlotte Nelson, Lucy Parker, Vicki Perez, Kimberly Pettway, Demetria Savage, Judy Terry, and Jenny Walters named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^{All Plaintiffs not named above, or otherwise dismissed by stipulation, remain pending. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷⁴⁴

^{Re: Frieda Dean Ammons, et al V. American Home Products Corporation, et al (00-20918)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of Feb., 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs Frieda Dean Ammons and Whitley Thompson, in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷⁴⁵

^{Re: Patricia M. Gardner, et al V. American Home Product Corporation (99-20194)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of Feb., 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs, Patricia M. Gardner, et al, named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷⁴⁶

^{Re: Hazel Favre V. American Home Products Corporation (99-20613)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of Feb., 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiff, Hazel Favre, named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiff and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-20-2001

¹⁷⁴⁷

^{Re: Charlotte W. Vining, et al V. American Home Products Corporation, et al (99-20611)}

^{STIPULATION AND PRETRIAL ORDER}

^{AND NOW, this 20th day of Feb., 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs, Charlotte W. Vining, et al, named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiffs and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation. APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.}

^2-23-2001

¹⁷⁴⁸

^{Re: THIS ORDER RELATES TO THE CASES LISTED ON EXHIBIT A}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT: This 23rd day of February, 2001, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1 (b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs. MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court}

^{Exhibit A attached to order. Block}

^2-26-2001

¹⁷⁴⁹

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, this 26th day of Feb., 2001, it is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 80 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs= cases listed on Exhibit B shall be marked Aclosed@ by the Clerk of Court.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibits A and B are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits C through K of Decision and Recommendation No. 80.}

^{BY THE COURT Exhibits attached to order.}

^2-26-2001

¹⁷⁵⁰

^{Re: Tasha Blanchard, et al V. American Home Products Corporation, et al (99-20779)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 26th day of February, 2001, upon consideration of the motion of Gordon Hackman (Docket # 202327) to withdraw as counsel for Cherie Coleman, IT IS ORDERED that withdraw of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{1. Plaintiff=s counsel shall send a letter to the plaintiff by certified mail that will include the following:}

^{(a) a copy of this Order;}

^{(b) a statement outlining to the plaintiff the importance of plaintiff proceeding on this case with counsel familiar with the law and the procedure in the federal court of cases similar to this case;}

^{(c) plaintiff=s counsel=s letter shall also provide that plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to secure new counsel if plaintiff intends to proceed with counsel in this manner;}

^{(d) plaintiff=s counsel=s letter shall also state that the court intends to grant present plaintiff=s counsel=s motion to withdraw at the expiration of the thirty (30) day period, and the case shall proceed on its normal trial schedule whether or not plaintiff has secured new counsel;}

^{(e) plaintiff=s counsel may include any other matter that plaintiff=s counsel believes pertinent in the letters to plaintiffs.}

^{2. Plaintiff=s counsel shall file with the Clerk of Court within ten (10) days of the date of this Order a certificate that both evidences that plaintiff=s counsel has complied with all of the foregoing requirements of this Order and states the plaintiff=s last known address.}

^{3. Thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, provided all of the foregoing steps have been completed by plaintiff=s counsel, plaintiff=s counsel shall be deemed to be released from further responsibility to the court as counsel for plaintiff in this civil action.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^2-26-2001

¹⁷⁵¹

^{Re: Deborah Lynn Hess V. American Home Products Corporation (00-20913)}

^ORDER

^{Upon consideration of the Joint Motion to Extend Discovery, it is this 26th day of February, 2001,}

^{ORDERED, that the motion is hereby granted.}

^2-26-2001

¹⁷⁵²

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^ORDER

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 26th day of Feb., 2001, upon consideration of the Thirty Third Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (12/01/00 through 12/31/00), 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 $29,644.67 for the period from 12/1/00 through 12/31/00, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^{BY THE COURT}

^2-26-2001

¹⁷⁵³

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^ORDER

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 26th day of Feb., 2001, upon consideration of the Thirty Second Application by Special Discovery Master for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses (11/01/00 through 11/30/00), 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 $43,798.27 for the period from 11/1/00 through 11/30/00, in accordance with the procedure established by the Court.}

^{BY THE COURT}

^2-26-2001

¹⁷⁵⁴

^{Re: June Gallagher and Joseph Gallagher, her husband V. American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, and Judith A. Alkire (00-20335)}

^{PLAINTIFF=S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Joseph Gallagher, for himself and on behalf of his deceased wife, June Gallagher (see attached Death Certificate), and dismisses the above captioned case bearing civil action number 00-20335, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41 (a) (2), with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.}

^2-26-2001

¹⁷⁵⁵

^{Re: Sandra Adams, et al V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Co., a division of AHP Corp., et al (00-20610)}

^{FINAL JUDGEMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{This cause having come on for hearing on the motion of the Plaintiff Shirley Leslie pursuant to F.R. Civ. Proc. 41 (a) (2) to voluntarily dismiss her claims against David Pate, MD, with prejudice, with each party to bear his or her own costs, and the Court having considered the motion finds that it is well taken and due to be granted.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUSTED that this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant David Pate, MD, with each party to bear his or her own costs.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUSTED that there is no just reason for delay in entry of a Final Judgement, and that this Judgement is a Final Judgement pursuant to F.R. Civ. Proc. 54 (b).}

^{DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of Feb., 2001.}

^2-26-2001

¹⁷⁵⁶

^{Re: Sandra Adams, et al V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., a division of AHP Corp., et al (00-20610)}

^{This cause having come on for hearing on the motion of the Plaintiff Susan Collier pursuant to F.R. Civ. Proc. 41 (a) (2) to voluntarily dismiss her claims against James L. Walker, MD, with prejudice, with each party to bear his or her own costs, and the Court having considered the motion finds that it is well taken and due to be granted.}

^{IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUSTED that this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant James L. Walker, MD, with each party to bear his or her own costs.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUSTED that there is no just reason for delay in entry of a Final Judgement, and that this Judgement is a Final Judgement pursuant to F.R. Civ. Proc. 54 (b).}

^{DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of Feb., 2001.}

^2-26-01

¹⁷⁵⁷

^{THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL ACTIONS UNDER SEAL}

^ORDER

^{AND NOW, this 26th day of Feb., 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff Management Committee=s Motion For Release And Use Of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esquire, Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esquire, is directed to make payment on invoices totaling Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($54,556.98) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the following routing number: #031-201-457 and account number: #2030000337576.}

^{BY THE COURT}

^2-28-2001

¹⁷⁵⁸

^{Re: Elizabeth Garvey V. American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., John doe Corporation A-C (00-20422)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT this 27th day of February, 2001, plaintiff and defendants, having stipulated for the dismissal of plaintiff, Elizabeth Garvey=s claims against AHP, wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), the Court approves such Stipulation and plaintiff Elizabeth Garvey=s claims against defendants AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.}

^2-27-2001

¹⁷⁵⁹

^{Re: Gary and Pamela Kopp V. American Home Products Corporation, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Fisons Corporation, Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Gate Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Rugby Laboratories, Inc., John does 1-3 and John Doe Corporation (00-20766)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT this 27th day of February, 2001, plaintiff and defendants, having stipulated for the dismissal of plaintiffs, Gary and Pamela Kopp=s claims against AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fisons Corporation, Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Gate Pharmaceuticals, A division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. And Rugby Laboratories, Inc., with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), the Court approves such Stipulation and plaintffs Gary and Pamela Kopp=s claims against defendants AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of AHP, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fisons Corporaton, Smithkline Beecham Corporation, Gate Pharmaceuticals, a divisin of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. And Rugby Laboratories, Inc., are dismissed with prejudice, each party of bear its own costs.}

^2-27-2001

¹⁷⁶⁰

^{Re: Diane and Charles Lee V. AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of AHP, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Fisons Corporation, Gate Pharmaceuticals a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Rugby Laboratories, Inc., Johen Does 1-4 (00-20993)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT this 27th day of February, 2001, plaintiffs and defendants, having stipulated for the dismisal of plaintiffs, Diane and Charles Lee=s claims gainst AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories division of AHP, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fisons corporation, Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, inc. And Rugby Laboratories, Inc., with prejducie, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), the Court approves such Stipulation and plaintiffs Diane and Charles Lee=s claims against defendants AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of AH, A.H. Robons Company, Inc., Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fisons Corporation, John Does 1-4 Gate Pharmaceuticals, a division of Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. And Rugby Laboratories, Inc., are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.}

^2-27-2001

¹⁷⁶¹

^{Re: Gloria and Steven Tilley V. AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of AHP, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Eon Labs Mfg., Inc., Rugby Laboratories, Inc., John Does 1-5, John Doe Corporation (00-20767)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT THIS 27th day of February, 2001, plaintiffs and defendants, having stipulated for the dismissal of plaintiffs, Gloria and Steven Tilley=s claims against AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of AHP, A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., and Rugby Laboratories, Inc., with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), the Court approves such Stipulation and plaintiffs Gloria an Steven Tilley=s claims against defendants AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of AHP, A.H. Robins Company, Eon Labs Mfg., Inc., and Rugby Laboratories, Inc., are dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.}

^2-27-2001

¹⁷⁶²

^{Re: Patricia Kohl V. AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company Division of AHP Corporation and A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (00-20058)}

^{STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{The parties to this case, pursuant to Rule 41 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate that thsi action as against AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of AHP and A.H. Robins Company be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff and Defendants AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division o AHP and A.H. Robins Company shall bear their own costs.}

^2-27-2001

¹⁷⁶³

^{Re: Cases listed on Exhibit AA@}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT: This 27th day of Februay, 2001, it having been reported that theissues between the parties in the listed action has been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1 (b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^{Exhibit A: Rose Allen, Linda Anderson, Julie Choda, Edna Cuellar, Rose DeSio, Lori DeVries, Sue Dunlap, Lonnie Ethington, Joyce Firzlaff, Colleen Green, Richard Herrera, Louise Houston, Marsha Jones, Sharon Kramer, Dianne Lawless, Tiffany Lacona-VanDyke, Donna Lucca, Jan Lukes, Karen Morenz, Katherine Olsen, Linda J. Owen, Willia Parkhurst, Linda Rhoades, Sharn Robinson, Rebecca Rogers, Kimberly Rooney, Carol Rustan, Patricia Slusinski, Judith Tatz, Loretta Tillman, Catherine Tonnar, Barbara Truitt, Suzanne Van Zandt, and Marsha Wannamaker.}

^2-27-2001

¹⁷⁶⁴

^{Re: Venona N. Matthews V. AHP (99-20194)}

^{AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs, Venona N. Mathews, et al, named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^2-28-2001

¹⁷⁶⁵

^{Re: Mary Brown V. AHP (99-20633)}

^{AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that the claims of Plaintiffs, Venona N. Mathews, et al, named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^3-1-2001

¹⁷⁶⁶

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1st day of March, 2001, IT IS ORERED that a hearing regarding the Joint Motion to Require the AHP Settlement Trust to Commence Distribution of the Proceeds of Settlement will commence at 10:00 a.m. on March 13, 2001 in Courtroom 17-B of the United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Hiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. All parties and the United States are notified by this Order that the court will consider the motion=s prayer for relief and the extent to which any relief should be granted. The Court will rule on the motion upon consideration of any papers filed and what is presented at the hearing. SO ORDERED.}

^3-1-2001

¹⁷⁶⁷

^{Re: Greta Zion V. AHP (00-20520)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1st day of March, 2001, upon consideration of the motion of Paul W. Chemnick of Chemnick, Moen & Greenstreet to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs, IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the listed conditions (see order for conditions).}

^3-1-2001

¹⁷⁶⁸

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2001, it is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 83 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs= cases listed on Exhibit A shall be marked Aclosed@ by the Clerk of Court.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibit A are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits B through G of Decision and Recommendation No. 83.}

^{BY THE COURT Exhibits attached to order.}

^3-1-2001

¹⁷⁶⁹

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2001, it is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 84 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs= cases listed on Exhibit B shall be marked Aclosed@ by the Clerk of Court.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibits A and B are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits C through R of Decision and Recommendation No. 84}

^{BY THE COURT Exhibits attached to order.}

^3-1-2001

¹⁷⁷⁰

^{Re: Sheila Brown, et al V. American Home Products, et al. (99-20593)}

^{AND NOW TO WIT, this 1st day of March 2001, upon consideration of the Stipulation of Withdrawal of Objections, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the objections of the Blue Cross Plans and the Health Plans, as outlined in the Stipulation, to the Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement are hereby marked WITHDRAWN.}

^{BY THE COURT}

^3-1-2001

¹⁷⁷¹

^{Re: Christine Gonzalez V. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., et al. (99-20599)}

^{AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2001, it is ORDERED that the petition (#202311) for court authorization of fee division in excess of twenty-five percent is DENIED without prejudice for the reason that Plaintiff=s Management Committee was not served.}

^{BY THE COURT}

^3-2-2001

¹⁷⁷²

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, this 2nd day of Mar., 2001, it is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 77 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs= cases listed on Exhibit B shall be marked Aclosed@ by the Clerk of Court.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibit A and B are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits C through O of Decision and Recommendation No. 77.}

^{BY THE COURT Exhibits attached to order.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁷³

^{Re: Earl Hunter and Beverly Hunter, husband and wife V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., a division of American Home Products, and EON Labs Man., Inc. (00-20803)}

^{STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{IT IS STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel of record, Kenneth L. Pedersen of the law firm Pedersen, Clark, & Jackson appearing for the Plaintiffs, David W. Gratton of the law firm Evans, Keane, appearing for the Defendants A.H. Robins Company, Inc., American Home Products Company, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, a division of American Home Products, and Allyn L. Sweeney of the law firm Ringert, Clark appearing for the Defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., that the above-entitled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁷⁴

^{Re: John A. Bradley and Dana Bradley, husband and wife V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., and Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (00-20164)}

^{STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{IT IS STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel of record, Kenneth L. Pedersen of the law firm Petersen, Clark, & Jackson appearing for the Plaintiffs, David W. Gratton of the law firm Evans, Keane appearing for the Defendants A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co., and Allyn L. Sweeney of the law firm Ringert, Clark appearing for the Defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., that the above-entitled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁷⁵

^{Re: Patricia R. Battle V. Ivyl W. Wells, M.D., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Co., a division of American Home Products, Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., Goldline Laboratories, Inc.}

^{STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{IT IS STIPULATED, by and between parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel of record, Kenneth L. Pedersen of the law firm Pedersen, Clark, & Jackson appearing for the Plaintiff, Jeremiah A. Quane of the law firm Quane, Smith appearing for the Defendant Ivyl W. Wells, M.D., David W. Gratton of the law firm Evans, Keane appearing for the Defendants A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, a division of American Home Products, Nickolas J. Dibert of the law firm Bullivant, Houser, & Bailey appearing for the Defendant Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Kurt D. Holzer of the law firm Holland & Hart appearing for the Defendant Goldline Laboratories, inc., and Allyn L. Sweeney of the law firm Ringert, Clark appearing for the Defendant Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., that tthe above-entitled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^{DATED this 6th day of December, 2000.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁷⁶

^{Re: Ronald Angel and Karleen Angel, husband and wife V. A.H. Robins, Inc., Americn Home Products Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., division of AHP, Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Goldline Laboratories, Inc. 00-20804}

^{STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{IT IS STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel of record, Kenneth L. Pedersen Plaintiffs, David W. Gratton of the law firm Evans, Keane appearing for the Defendants A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Co., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, a division of American Home Products, that the above-titled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties bear their own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁷⁷

^{Re: Blaine Bird and Laura Bird, husband and wife V. American Home Products Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (00-20802)}

^{STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{IT IS STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel of record, Kenneth L. Pedersen of the law firm Pedersen, Clark, & Jackson appearing for the Plaintiffs, David W. Gratton of the law firm Evans, Keane appearing for the Defendants American Home Products Corporation, a Delaware corporation, that the above-entitled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁷⁸

^{Re: Judy Stockham V. A.H. Robins Co., American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co., a division of AHP, Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and EON Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (99-20769)}

^{STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{IT IS STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel of record, Kenneth L. Pedersen of the law firm Pedersen, Clark, & Johnson appearing for the Plaintiffs, David W. Gratton of the law firm Evans, Keane appearing for the Defendants A.H. Robins Co, AHP Corp, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., a division of AHP, and Allyn L. Sweeney of the law firm Ringert, Clark appearing for the Defendant EON Labs Manufacturing, Inc., that the above-entitled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs and attorney=s fees.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁷⁹

^{Re: George R. Leonard and Valerie Leonard, husband and wife V. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., a division of AHP, and EON Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (00-20165)}

^{IT IS STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel of record, Kenneth L. Pedersen of the law firm Pedersen, Clark & Jackson appearing for the Plaintiffs, David W. Gratton of the law firm Evans, Keane appearing for the Defendants A.H. Robins Company, Inc., AHP, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, a division of AHP and Allyn L. Sweeney of the law firm Ringert, Clark appearing for the Defendant Eon Labs Mfg., Inc., that the titled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁸⁰

^{Re: Michael Embry V. American Home Products Corporation, et al. (99-20689)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 8th day of March, 2001, upon cinsideration of the motion of Harrison, Kemp & Jones, CHTD and all attorneys within the firm who have appeared s counsel for the plaintiff to withdraw as counsel for Michael Embry, IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{1. Plaintiff=s counsel shall send a letter to the plaintiff by certified mail that will include the following:}

^{(a) a copy of this order;}

^{(b) a statement outlining to plaintiff the importance of plaintiff proceeding on this case with counsel familiar with the law and the procedure in the federal court of cases similar to this case;}

^{8 plaintiff=s counsel=s letter shall also provide that plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to secure new counsel if plaintiff intends to proceed with counsel in this manner;}

^{(d) plaintiff=s counsel=s letter shall aslo state that the court intends to grant present plaintiff=s counsel=s motion to withdraw at the expiration of the thirty (30) day period, and the case shell proceed on its normal trial schedule whether or not plaintiff has secured new counsel;}

^{(e) plaintiff=s counsel my include any other matter that plaintiff=s ocunsel believes is pertinent in the letters to plaintiffs.}

^{2. Plaintiff=s counsel shall file with the Clerk fo Court within ten (10) days of the date of this Order a certificate that both evidences that plaintiff=s ocunsel has complied with all of the foregoing requirements of this order and states th plaintiff=s last known address.}

^{3. Thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, provideed all of the foregoing steps have been completed by plaintiff=s counsel, plaintiff=s counsel shall be deemed to be released from further responsibility to the court as counsel for plaintiff in this civil action.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁸¹

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2001, upon consideration of PMC=s Motion for Release and Use of Funds from the MDL 1203 Fee and Cost Account, established by Gregory Miller, Esquire, Escrow Agent, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and Gregory Miller, Esquire is directed to make payment on invoices totaling One Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty One Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($184,281.98) to the PMC Fen-Phen Litigation Account, by wire transfer using the routing number.}

^3-8-2001

¹⁷⁸²

^{Re: Gregory Skipitis V. American Home Products Corp., Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., A.H. Robins Co., Inc., Les Laboratories Servier, Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., EON Labs Manu., Inc., Rugby Labs, Inc. (98-20652)}

^{REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1255}

^{This is a dismissal with prejudice of an entire civil action in MDL Docket No. 1203.}

^{Plaintiff: Gregory Skipitis,}

^{pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Pretrial Order No. 1255, voluntarily dismisses with prejudice Civil Action No. 98-CV-20652 as to all named Defendants, which are as follows:}

^{1. Rugby Laboratories, Inc.;}

^{2. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.;}

^{3. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;}

^{4. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;}

^{5. Les Laboratories Servier;}

^{6. A.H. Robins Company, Inc.;}

^{7. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories;}

^{8. American Home Products Corporation.}

^{This case can be marked closed.}

^3-9-2001

¹⁷⁸³

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2001, it is ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation No. 86 of Special Discovery Master (as to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Various Defendants) is AFFIRMED.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A shall file conforming captions with the Court within thirty (30) days.}

^{It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants listed on Exhibit A are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibit A are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from the cases listed on Exhibits B through H of Decision and Recommendation No. 86.}

^{BY THE COURT (Exhibits attached to order.}

^3-9-2001

¹⁷⁸⁴

^{Re: ALL ACTIONS}

^{AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2001, it is ORDERED that Pretrial Order #1748 is vacated as it relates to Laura Hill. Laura Hill is not a plaintiff in the above mentioned MDL.}

^{BY THE COURT.}

^3-9-2001

¹⁷⁸⁵

^{Re: Cases Listed on Exhibit AA@}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT: This 9th day of March, 2001, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above actions have been settled and upon Order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 41.1 (b) of the local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above actions are DISMISSED with prejudice as to all named Defendants, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs. It is further,}

^{ORDERED that all cases can be marked closed.}

^{MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court (Exhibits attached to Order)}

^3-9-2001

¹⁷⁸⁶

^{Re: Valerie R. Smith, et al V. American Home Products, et al; Eon Labs Manu., Inc. (98-20388)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT: This 9th day of March, 2001, it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1 (b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is}

^{ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all named defendants, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.}

^{IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case can be marked closed.}

^{MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court}

^3-13-2001

¹⁷⁸⁷

^{Re: Cynthia Bik, et al V. American Home Products, et al (00-21068)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 13th day of March, 2001, upon consideration of the motion of Kimberley K. Baer, Stephen p. Wandro, and Michelle M. Casper of Wandro, Lyons, Wagenr, & Baer, P.C. to withdrawal as counsel for plaintiffs (docket #202344), IT IS ORDERED that withdrawal of counsel is permitted, subject to the following conditions:}

^{1. Plaintiffs= counsel shall send a letter to the plaintiffs by certified mail that will include the following:}

^{(a) a copy of this order;}

^{(b) a statement outlining to plaintiffs the importance of plaintiffs proceeding on this case with counsel familiar with the law and the procedure in the federal court of cases similar to this case;}

^{(c) plaintiffs= counsel letter shall also provide that plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to secure new counsel if plaintiffs intends to proceed with counsel in this manner;}

^{(d) plaintiffs= counsel letter shall also state that the court intends to grant present plaintiffs= counsels= motion to withdraw at the expiration of the thirty (30) day period, and the case shall proceed on its normal trial schedule whether or not plaintiffs have secured new counsel;}

^{(e) plaintiffs= counsel may include any other matter that plaintiffs= counsel believes is pertinent in the letters to the plaintiffs.}

^{2. Plaintiffs= counsel shall file with the Clerk of Court within ten (10) days of the date of this Order a certificate that both evidences that plaintiffs= counsel has complied with all of the foregoing requirements of this Order and states the plaintiffs= last known address.}

^{3. Thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, provided all of the foregoing steps have been completed by plaintiffs= counsel, plaintiffs= counsel shall be deemed to be released from further responsibility to the court as counsel for plaintiffs in this civil action.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^3-15-2001

¹⁷⁸⁸

^{Re: Diane Gailbreath, Janice Pinson, Rhonda Belk V. American Home Products (99-20503,20547, 00-20469)}

^{AND NOW, TO WIT, this 15th day of March, 2001, presently before the court is a Motion of American Home Products to Dismiss the Class Action Allegations from the above referenced civil actions. The primary ground for seeking dismissal is the failure of the plaintiffs in these civil actions to conform to the requirement of Local Civil Rule 231 (c) that requires that plaintiffs shall move for a termination under (c) (1) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 so that the court can determine whether or not the action should proceed as a Class Action. Such motions have not been filed in the above civil actions. Defendants= motion is unopposed and accordingly the motion is GRANTED.}

^{SO ORDERED.}

^3-15-2001

¹⁷⁸⁹

^{Re: Margie Louis, et al V. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al (00-21007)}

^{ORDER DISMISSING ALL DEFENDANTS}

^{This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs= motion to dismiss this action in its entirety. The Court find that the motion is well taken, and is, therefore}

^{CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Plaintiffs= claims against all Defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice and each party shall bear their own costs.}

^{SO ORDERED AND ADJUSTED, this 15th day of March, 2001.}

^3-15-2001

¹⁷⁹⁰

^{Re: Gwen Washington, et al V. American Home Products Corporation (00-21025)}

^{AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2001, it is hereby STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a) (1) (ii), that the claims of Plaintiff, Michelle May, named in the Complaint in the above-captioned matter, is hereby dismissed with prejudice, in their entirety. Each party is to bear it=s own costs.}

^{This Stipulation is filed on behalf of the above-named Plaintiff and all Defendants who have appeared in the above captioned matter, against who the claims in the Complaint shall be dismissed in their entirety by the Court=s approval of this Stipulation.}

^3-15-2001

¹⁷⁹¹

^{Re: Susan Mixon V. A.H. Robins Company and Camall Company (98-20533)}

^{JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{COMES NOW the plaintiff Susan Mixon, and dismisses the above-entitled cause with prejudice regarding the claims made in this lawsuit.}

^3-15-2001

¹⁷⁹²

^{Re: Nancy D. Czulewicz V. American Home Products Corp., a Delaware Corporation; A.H. Robins Company, Inc., Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, a Division of American Home Products; and EON Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (99-20501)}

^{REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1255.}

^{This is a dismissal with prejudice of an ENTIRE CIVIL ACTION in MDL 1203.}

^{Plaintiff: 1. Nancy D. Czulewicz}

^{pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Pretrial No. 1255 voluntarily dismisses with prejudice Civil Action No. 99-20501 as to all named Defendants which are as follows:}

^{1. American Home Products Corporation}

^{2. A.H. Robins Company, Inc.}

^{3. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company}

^{4. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc.}

^{For each plaintiff listed above whose claims in their entirety are being dismissed voluntarily with prejudice, undersigned counsel of record for plaintiff hereby certifies as a condition of this dismissal being with prejudice that:}

^{1. Each plaintiff has complied with the requirements of Pretrial Order No. 22; and}

^{2. The Complaint in this civil action contains no class action allegations (or, in the alternative, all class action allegations in the Complaint of this civil action have been dismissed by Pretrial Order No. 450).}

^{3. This case can be marked closed.}

^3-15-2001

¹⁷⁹³

^{Re: Sheila Brown, Sharon Gaddie, Vivian Naugle, Quintin Layer, and Joby Jackson-Reid, Individually and all others similarly situated V. American Home Products Corporation (99-20593)}

^{AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2001, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUSTED, and DECREED that pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 1434, this Court has previously deferred the filing of Applications for awards of Counsel Fees and Reimbursements of Costs.}

^{This Court has entered retrial Orders Nos. 16 and 1164 setting forth a methodology for reporting attorneys= hours and expenses in connection with this matter. This Court has appointed Alan B. Winikur, C.P.A., ZELNICK, MAN, & WINIKUR, 10 North Presidential Boulevard, Suite 120, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1107 for purposes of auditing reportable hours and expenses.}

^{At this time, counsel, other than members of the Plaintiffs= Management Committee, the Court approved MDL committees and the common benefit attorneys in the MDL (all of whom have been previously required to make submissions) are hereby notified that if they intend to apply for counsel fees and/or reimbursements of costs in connection with the National Class Action Settlement, approved by this Court in Pretrial Order No. 1415 (appeal pending in the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit), they shall within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, report their time and expenses attributable to the class action in accordance with the format set forth in Pretrial Order NO. 16 and serve the same on Liason Counsel, Arnold Levin, Levin, Fisbein, Sedran, and Berman, 510 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Liason Counsel, Mr. Levin is directed to deliver such applications to Alan B. Winikur, C.P.A. for his review and audit.}

^{Liason Counsel is hereby to forward this Order along with Pretrial Order Nos. 16 and 1164 to all attorneys who have indicated their intention to make an application for an award of counsel fees and reimbursement of costs and is further directed to forward this Order via first class mail, to designated counsel for the certified states for their dissemination to their committees of state counsel. The designated certified state counsel are as follows:}

^{Pennsylvania-Sol Weiss, Esq.}

^{New York-Gene Locks, Esq.}

^{New Jersey-Michael Coren, Esq.}

^{Texas-Charles Parker, Esq.}

^{West Virginia-Carl Frankovich, Esq.}

^{Illinois-Michael Moirano, Esq.}

^{Liason Counsel is further directed to file with the Court an Affidavit of Service with regard to the dissemination of this Order.}

^{The subject matter of this order is to allow counsel the opportunity to make their good faith submissions for review and auditing prior to submission to the Court, and is not to be construed as an endorsement by this Court or Class Counsel of entitlement to an award of either counsel fees and/or costs.}

^{Exhibits attached to order.}

^3-16-2001

¹⁷⁹⁴

^{Re: Valerie Alfs McCarthy and Paul McCarthy, husband and wife V. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Company, A.H. Robins, Inc., and Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (99-20770)}

^{ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE}

^{This cause coming on at this time on stipulation of the parties hereto, through their respective counsel of record, and good cause appearing therefor:}

^{IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and this does ORDER that the above-entitled action be dismissed with prejudice, on the ground and for the reason that the same has been fully compromised and settled, all parties to bear their own costs and attorneys= fees. The case can be marked closed.}

^3-16-2001

¹⁷⁹⁵

^{Re: Joanne Stratton V. AHP, A.H. Robins, Wyeth-Ayerst, Interneuron, Medeva, Fisons, Gate, a division of Teva, SmithKline Beecham, Abana, Richwood, Ion Labs. (00-20564)}

^{REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 41 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1255}

^{This is a dismissal with prejudice of an ENTIRE CIVIL ACTION in MDL 1203.}

^{Plaintiff: 1. Joanne Stratton}

^{pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Pretrial Order No. 1255 voluntarily dismissed with prejudice Civil Action No. 00-20564 as to all named Defendants which are as follows:}

^{1. American Home Products Corporation}

^{2. A.H. Robins Company, Inc.}

^{3. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc.}

^{4. Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.}

^{5. Medeva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.}

^{6. Fisons Corporation}

^{7. Gate Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a division of Teva Pharmaceutical, U.S.A., Inc.}

^{8. SmithKline Beecham Corporation}