Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-5027DEBORAH ANN DOYLE and JOHN MACK DOYLE, wife and husband Plaintiff VS. ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORPORATION; AESTHETECH CORPORATION; APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION; BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB AND COMPANY; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.; COOPER SURGICAL, INC.; COX-UPHOFF, DOW CORINING CORPORATION; DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; HULS AMERICA, INC.; INAMED CORPORATION; 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.; MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION; MCGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION; MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION; MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.; SCOTT PAPER COMPANY; SIROD CORPORAITON; UNION CARBIDE CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. INC.; SAMIR SROUJI, M.D., PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C. AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants Dated: 3/29/04 No. 2662 August 1994 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO TRAN~=F~ ~ ~ Kindly transfer the above-captioned mattet~it~Glh~r!~..~ C~nty. Respe~full~su~, ::~ DISC. Attorney L~. ~o: 27594 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp~iH,~A 170~1 (717) 73~-4800 REPORT : ZDRDOCT USER ID: BTP PAGE 1 First Judicial District CIVIL DOCKET REPORT CASE ID 940802662 RI/N DATE 07/20/04 RUN TIME 11:50 AM CASE NUMBER CASE CAPTION 940802662 DOYLE VS. ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORP., ET AL FILING DATE COURT LOCATION JURY 19-AUG-1994 MT CH J CASE TYPE: MASS TORT - IMPLANT (BREAST) STATUS: TPJ%NSFER TO OTHER JURISDICTION Seq # Assoc Expn Date ~ype I__D 1 2 PLF ®443651 2 1 APLF A57203 3 2 PLF @443652 4 DFT I2161 5 DFT I714 6 DFT I2283 7 DFT I710 Party Name / Address & Phone No. DOYLE, DEBORAH A 1948 BRIGGS STREET PENBR00K PA 17103 FODERA, LEONARD V ELEVEN PENN CENTER, SUITE 2600 1835 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 (215)561-2100 (215)561-0190 - FAX DOYLE, MACK 1948 BRIGGS STREET PENBROOK PA 17103 ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORP 5425 HOLLISTER AVE C/O GARY MISTLIN MENTORCORP SANTA BARBARA CA 93111 AKA- GENERAL LABORATORIES AKA- MEMTOR POLYMER TECH AKA- MENTOR POLYMER TECH AKA- MENTOR POLYMER TECH. AKA- MENTOR POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES AKA- MENTOR POYLMER TECH AKA- METNOR POLYMER TECH AESTHETECH CORP 3003 ROLLIE LAKES PASO ROBLES CA 93446 APPLIED SILICONE CORP 320 WEST STANLEY AVENUE VENTUP~A CA 93001 BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP DELAWARE CO ONE BAXTER PARKWAY BANNOCKBURN IL 60015 PAGE 2 REPORT : ZDRDOCT First Judicial District RUN DATE 07/20/04 USER ID: BTP CIVIL DOCKET REPORT RUN TIME 11:50 AM CASE ID 940802662 Seq # Assoc Expn Date Type I_~D 8 DFT I709 9 10 DFT I704 10 9 ADFT A2789 11 10 DFT I712 12 10 DFT I711 13 DFT 1739 14 DFT 1700 15 DFT I701 16 17 DFT I64 17 16 ADFT A19350 Party Name / Address & Phone No. AKA- BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC AKA- TRAVENOL LABS. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL ONE BAXTER PKWY PHILADELPHIA PA 60015 BRISTOL MEYERS SQUIBB CO 345 PARK AVE PHILADELPHIA PA 10154 ELKINS, S. GORDON 2600 ONE COMMERCE SQUARE PHILA., PA. PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 (000)564-8120 COOPER CO INC NONE PHILADELPHIA PA 19100 AKA- COOPERVISION, INC. COOPER SURGICAL INC 17701 COWEN AVE PO BOX 19587 IRVINE CA 92713 COX-UPHOFF INTERNATIONAL 1160 HARK AVE CARPINTERIA CA 93013 AKA- CUI CORPORATION DOW CORNING CORP NONE PHILADELPHIA PA 19100 DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORP NONE PHILADELPHIA PA 19100 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 3135 EASTON TURNPIKE FAIRFIELD CT 06431 AKA- GE AKA- GE NUCLEAR ENERGY AKA- GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, I AKA- GENERAL ELECTRIC MEDICAL SY KEATING, III, E. MICHAEL HOLLSTEIN KEATING CATTELL JOHNSON & GOLDSTEIN 1628 J.F.K. BLVD. - SUITE 2000 PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 {215)320-3260 PAGE 3 REPORT : ZDRDOCT First Judicial District RUN DATE 07/20/04 USER ID: BTP CIVIL DOCKET REPORT RUN TIME 11:50 AM CASE ID 940802662 Seq # Assoc Expn DaZe ?ype I~D 18 DFT I727 19 20 DFT 1728 20 19 ADFT A22071 21 23 DFT I717 22 21 ADFT A14082 23 21 ADFT A60086 24 20 DFT I736 25 DFT I737 Party Name / Address & Phone No. (215)320-3261 - FA3{ HULS AMERICA INC 80 CENTENNIAL AVE PHILADELPHIA PA 08855 AKA- PETRARCH SYSTEMS, INC. INAMED CORP 1035 CINDY LANE CARPINTERIA CA 93013 ZESZUTEK, C JAMES THORP REED & ARMSTRONG LLP ONE OXFORD CENTRE 301 GR3~NT STREET PITTSBURGH PA 15219 (412)394-7779 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS 1600 CITIZEN PLAZA LOUISVILLE KY 40202 AKA- EDDY ACQUISITIONS AKA- EDDY ACQUISITIONS NOW OPERA AKA- FOAMEX PRODUCTS, INC. AKA- GENERAL FELT INDUSTRIES, IN AKA- KNOLL INTERNATIONAL HOLDING AKA- KNOLL INTERNATIONAL HOLDING AKA- SCOTFOAM CORP AKA- SCOTFOAM CORPORATION BRITTON, ROBERT M POST & SCHELL, P.C. 4 PENN CENTER, 13TH FLOOR 1600 J.F.K. BLVD. PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 (215)587-1000 (215)587-1444 - FA~X CONNOLLY, ANDREW J POST & SCHELL, P.C. 4 PENN CENTER, 13TH FLOOR 1600 J.F.K BLVD. PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 (215)587-1000 (215)587-1444 - FAX MCGHAig MEDICAL CORP 1035 CINDY LANE CARPINTERIA CA 93013 MCGHAN NUSIL CORP 1055-B CINDY LANE CARPINTERIA CA 93013 PAGE 4 REPORT : ZDRDOCT First Judicial District RUN DATE 07/20/04 USER ID: BTP CIVIL DOCKET REPORT RUN TIME 11:50 AM CASE ID 940802662 Seq # Assoc Expn Date ~ype 26 10 DFT I706 27 20 DFT I732 28 10 DFT I715 29 23 DFT 1719 30 10 DFT 1734 31 33 DFT 1722 32 31 ADFT A30017 33 31 ADFT A22126 34 33 DFT 181 Party Name / Address & Phone No. AKA- NUSIL TECHNOLOGIES MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORP 4 GATEWAY CENTER 100 MULBERRY ST. ACADEMY NJ 07102 AKA- SURGITEK AKA- SURGITEK, INC. AKA- SURGITEK, INC., A WHOLLY OW AKA- SURGITEK, INC. MINNESOTA MINING MANUFACTURING C/O C.T. CORP SYSTEMS 123 SOUTH BROA~D STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19109 AKA- 3M AND MCGHAN MEDICAL CORP AKA- 3M AND MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPO AKA- ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY AKA- MCGHAN MEDICAL CORP NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES INC 17701 COWAN AVE PHILADELPHIA PA 92713 SCOTT PAPER CO INDUSTRIAL HIGHWAY & TINICUM R D PHILADELPHIA PA 19100 SIROD CORP NONE PHILADELPHIA PA 19100 UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AMD PLASTI 39 OLD RIDGEBURY RD PHILADELPHIA PA 06817 MISHKIN, JEREMY D MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN FIDELITY BLDG, 123 S.BROAD PHILADELPHIA PA 19109 (000)772-7246 BIKIN, BRUCE H MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN FIDELITY BLDG, 123 S.BROAD PHILADELPHIA PA 19109 (000)772-7222 UNION CARBIDE CORP 39 OLD RIDGEBURY RD PHILADELPHIA PA 06817 PAGE 5 REPORT : ZDRDOCT First Judicial District RUN DATE 07/20/04 USER ID: BTP CIVIL DOCKET REPORT RUN TIME 11:50 A_M CASE ID 940802662 Seq # Assoc Expn Date Type 35 36 DFT I4873 36 35 ADFT A16412 37 48 DFT ~443653 38 37 13-MAR-95 ADFT A7186 39 37 17-NOV-03 ADFT A2417 40 48 DFT @443654 41 48 DFT ~443655 42 41 ADFT A15907 Party Name / Address & Phone No. WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES INC 5441 AVENIDA ENCINAS STE. A PHILADELPHIA PA 92008 AKA- 5441 AVENIDA ENCINAS, STE A AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WILSHIRE AKA- WISLHIRE FARMS FOAM FOAM PRODUCTS INC FOAM PRODUCTS, INC FOAM PRODUCTS,INC FOAM PRODUCTS,INC. FOAN PRODUCTS, INC FORAM PRODUCTS, IN FORM PRODUCTS INC FORM PRODUCTS, INC FOAM PRODUCTS, INC MURPHY,JR., ARTHUR 326 THIRD AVE. SUITE 100 PGH PA 15222 (000)255-0200 SROUJI, SAMIR 3438 TRINDLE ROAD RANAVILLA PA 17011 HAFER, JOSEPH P P.O. BOX. 999 HARRISBURG PA 17108 (000)255-7613 WALKER, JOSEPH M MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER 10 NORTH MAIN ST., 2ND FLOOR DOYLESTOWN PA 18901 (215)340-5460 (215)348-5439 - FAX PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C. 3438 TRINDLE ROAD RANAVILLA PA 17011 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 503 N. 21ST STREET PdkNAVILLA PA 17011 STONE, CHAIG A 319 MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 966 HARRISBURG PA 17108 (000)234-4161 43 10-FEE-04 ADFT A4975 STARR, ALLAN H PAGE 6 REPORT ~ ZDRDOCT First Judicial District RUN DATE 07/20/04 USER ID: BTP CIVIL DOCKET REPORT RUN TIME 11:50 AM CASE ID 940802662 Seq # Assoc Expn Date ~ype 44 DFT I5638 45 23 DFT 46 23 DFT 47 23 DFT I726 13222 I720 48 ADFT A27594 49 48 ADFT A78565 Party Name / Address & Phone No. ONE LIBERTY PLACE SUITE 1800 1650 MARKET ST PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 (215)864-6223 (215)864-7123 - FAX KNOLL INTERNATIONAL HOLDING INC 1600 CITIZENS PLAZA PHILADELPHIA PA 40202 FOAMEX PRODUCTS INC 1600 CITIZENS PLAZA PHILADELPHIA PA 40202 AKA- SCOTFOAM CORPORATION GENERAL FELT INDUSTRIES INC 259 CANAL RD PHILADELPHIA PA 19030 SCOTFOAM CORP 1600 CITIZENS PLZ PHILADELPHIA PA 40202 AKA- KNOLL INTERNATIONAL HOLDING AKA- KNOLL INTERNATIONAL HOLDING MARSHALL,JR., FRANCIS E 1323 NORTH FRONT ST. WEST END PA 17102 (000)236-7300 CHAIRS, THOMAS M 20 S 36TH STREET CAMP HILL PA 17011 Filing Date / Time 19-AUG-94 14:36:00 19-AUG-94 14:36:00 19-AUG-94 14:36:02 19-AUG-94 14:36:04 25-AUG-94 10:10:00 Docket Entry ACTIVE (~SE Date Entered 19-AUG-94 FILING TEXT FILING ATTY-099970 22-AUG-94 FILING TEXT PROTHY $155.50 A~OUNT AT ISSUE MORE THAN $50,000.00 22 -AUG - 94 FILING TEXT PRAECIPE TO ISSUE WRIT FILED. JURY TRIAL WAIVED. 22-AUG-94 WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED. SHERIFF'E SERVICE 27-0CT-94 SERVED A COPY OF THE WRIT OF SUMMONS BY CERTIFIED ON ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORF AESTHETECH CORP NATUR3kL Y PAGE 7 REPORT : ZDRDOCT First Judicial District RUN DATE 07/20/04 USER ID: BTP CIVIL DOCKET REPORT RUN TIME 11:50 AM CASE ID 940802662 Filinq Date / Time 29-AUG-94 10:01:00 07-SEP-94 15:01:00 15-SEP-94 10:47:00 03-0CT-94 12:50:00 04-0CT-94 16:19:00 11-OCT-94 15:31:00 24-OCT-94 10:34:00 Docket Entry Date Entered SURGICAL INC MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO INC MCGHAN NUSIL CORP. MCGHAN MEDICAL CORP. 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC INAMED CORP. COX-UPHOFF REC'D ON 8/25/94 SHERIFF'S SERVICE 27-0CT-94 SERVED A COPY OF THE WRIT OF SUMMONS ON HOLY SPIRT HOSPITAL, PLASTIC SURGERY P.C. REC'D ON 8/29/94 SERVED A COPY OF THE WRIT OF SUMMON BY CERTIFIED MAIL ON SAMIR SROUJI M.D. ON 8/31/94 SERVED A COPY OF THE SUMMONS ON DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORP, MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORP., HULS /LMERICA /NC., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., COOPER SURGICAL INC., AND COOPER COMPANIES ON 8/24/94 BY CERTIFIED MAIL. SERVED A COPY OF THE SUMMONS ON BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC AND BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP ON 8/26/94 BY CERTIFIED MAIL ON 8/26/94 SERVED A COPY OF THE WRIT OF SUMMONS ON DEFEN~LNT BRISTOL- MYERS SQUIBB AND CO ON 8/30/94 BY CERTIFIED MAIL ENTRY OF APPEAPJkNCE FILED APPEARA~NCE OF E. MICHAEL KEATING, III ESQ. GENERAL, ELECTRIC COMPANY FEE PAID $78.00 08-SEP-94 FOR DEFENDANT ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED APPEARANCE OF C JAMES ZESZUTEK ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION FOR DEFENDANT MINNESOTA MINING A/qD MANUFACTURING (3M) FOR DEFENDANT INAMED CORPORATION FEE PAID $78.00 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 20-SEP-94 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED 04-0CT-94 APPEARA/~CE OF ROBERT M BRITTON ESQ. APPEARA=NCE OF ANDREW J CONNOLLY ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS FOR DEFENDANT FOAMEX PRODUCTS, /NC. FOR DEFENDANT GENERAL FELT INDUSTRIES,INC. FOR DEFENDANT SCOTFOAJ~[ CORPORATION FEE PAID $78. 00 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS REQUESTED. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED 06-0CT-94 APPEARANCE OF JEREMY MISHKIN ESQ. APPEARANCE OF BRUCE H BIKIN ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION FOR DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS CO. FEE PAID $78.00 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED 13-OCT-94 APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH P HAFER ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT SAMIR SROUJI FOR DEFENDANT PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C. FEE PAID $78.00 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS REQUESTED. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED 25-0CT-94 APPEARANCE OF CRAIG A STONE ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL FEE PAID $78.00 PAGE 8 REPORT : ZDRDOCT First Judicial District RUN DATE 07/20/04 USER ID~ BTP CIVIL DOCKET REPORT RUN TIME 11:50 AM CASE ID 940802662 Filing Date / Time 24-OCT-94 10:34:02 21-NOV-94 12:08:00 25-NOV-94 10:39:00 12-JAN-95 15:20:00 27-JAM-95 12:10:00 27-JAN-95 12:10:02 13-MAR-95 11:13:00 24-APR-95 14:55:00 23-MAY-95 10:24:00 19-JUN-95 10:19:00 Docket Entry Date Entered RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT 25-0CT-94 PRAECIPE AND RULE FILED UPON PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OR SUFFER JUDGMENT OF NON PROS. FILED BY--HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED 22-NOV-94 APPEAPJtNCE OF ARTHUR MURPHY,JR. ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES~ INC. FEE PAID $78~00 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED 02-DEC-94 APPEAR3~NCE OF ROBERT M BRITTON ESQ. APPEAP3~qCE OF ANDREW J CONNOLLY ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT SCOTT PAPER COMPANY FEE PAID $78.00 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS REQUESTED. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED 24-JAN-95 APPEARANCE OF S. GORDON ELKINS ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY FOR DEFENDANT MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPOP. ATION FOR DEFENDANT COOPER COMPA~NY, INC. FOR DEFENDANT COOPERSURGICAL, INC. FOR DEFENDANT SIROD CORPORATION FOR DEFENDANT NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC. FEE PAID $78.00 ENTRY C,F APPEARANCE FILED 30-JAN-95 APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH M WALKER ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT SAMIR SROUJI FEE PAID $78.00 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS REQUESTED. RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT 30-JAN-95 PRAECIPE AND RULE FILED UPON PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OR SUFFER JUDGMENT OF NON PROS. FILED BY--SAMIR SROUJI,M.D. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED 14-MAR-95 WITHDRAWAL OF JOSEPH P HAFER ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT SAMIR SROUJI FOR DEFENDANT PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C. COMPLAINT/SUMMONS FILED COMPLAINT WITH NOTICE TO DEFEND, WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER SERVICE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 1018.1 FILED. 01-MAY-95 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED 24-MAY-95 APPEARANCE OF ALLAN H STARR ESQ, FOR DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HDSPITAL FEE PAID $78.00 JURY TRIAL WAIVED SHERIFF'S; SERVICE 21-JUN-95 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT UPON DEFENDANT(S) 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. SCOTT PAPER COMPANY AESTHETECH CORPORATION SIROD CORPORATION BY CERTIFIED MAIL FILED. PAGE 9 REPORT : ZDRDOCT First Judicial District RUN DATE 07/20/04 USER ID: BTP CIVIL DOCKET REPORT RUN TIME 11:50 AM CASE ID 940802662 ~iling Date / Time 19-JUN-95 10:19:02 19-JUN-95 10:19:04 26-OCT-95 10:10:30 26-OCT-95 12:18:00 03-NOV-97 11:24:54 03-NOV-97 11:53:35 03-JUL-01 13:51:00 18-JUL-01 12:37:15 30-AUG-01 12:54:00 19-AUG-02 10:46:51 Docket Entry Date Entered SHERIFF'S SERVICE 21-JUN-95 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT UPON DEFENDANT{S) NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC. MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION COOPERSURGICAL, INC. DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION BY CERTIFIED MAIL FILED. SHERIFF'S SERVICE 21-JUN-95 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT UPON DEFENDANT(S) BRISTOL MEYERS SQUIBB CO., INC. PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C. SAMIR SROUJI, M.D. BY CERTIFIED MAIL FILED. TRANSFER TO OTHER JURISDICTION 27-0CT-95 REMOVAL/TRANSFER 27-0CT-95 NOTICE OF FILING A PETITION FOR REMOVAL TO THE U. DISTRICT COURT C.A_ NO. 95CV6372 $30.00 FEE PAID REMANDED BY US DISTRICT COURT 03-NOV-97 ORDER FROM U.S- DISTRICT COURT OF ALABAMA REMANDING THIS MATTER TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILA. COUNTY... WAITING FOR LISTING MASS TORT 03-NOV-97 PARTIAL DISCONTINUANCE FILED 05-JUL-01 ORDER DISMISSING MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO. BY JUDGE WETTICK DATED 4-25-01 FILED PARTIAL DISCONTINUANCE FILED ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC. BY JUDGE WETTICK DATED 4-26-01 FILED 18-JUL-01 AMD PARTIAL DISCONTINUANCE FILED 30-AUG-01 ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING DEFT., MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORP. BY COORDINATING JUDGE FOR SILICONE BREAST IMPLANT LITIGATION. JUDGE WETTICK 4-26-01 ORDER - PARTIAL DISCONTINUANCE 19-AUG-02 DINUBILE, JR., VICTOR J IT IS ORDERED THAT DFT APPLIED SILICONE CORP.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO AFF. OF NON-INVOLVEMENT IS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS: 1. PLFS' CLAIMS AND ANY AND ALL CROSS-CLAIMS AGAINST APPLIED SILICONE COEP. IN THOSE CASES LISTED ON EXHIBIT A IN THE MOTION (RESIDENT IN RECORD) ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 2. THIS ORDER WILL BE THE ONLY ORIGINAL ORDER ISSUED IN THE CASES LISTED ON EXHIBIT A.; AMD 3. COPIES OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE FILED IN EACH CASE LISTED ON EXHIBIT A SHALL SERVE AS IDENTICAL TO THE ORIGINAL AND SHALL BE ACCEPTED AS IF THE ORIGINAL IN THE CASES LISTED ON EXHIBIT A .... BY THE COURT: DINUBILE, J., $-13-02 PAGE 10 REPORT : ZDRDOCT First Judicial District RUN DATE 07/20/04 USER ID: BTP CIVIL DOCKET REPORT RUN TIME 11:50 AM CASE ID 940802662 Filing Date / Time 17-NOV-03 14:13:00 28-JAN-04 14:10:06 10-FEB-04 14:15:00 04-MAR-04 09:51:02 04-MAR-04 09:51:05 04-MAR-04 09:51:06 19-JUL-04 16:34:00 Docket Entry Date Entered WITHDRAWAL/ENTRY OF APPEARANCE 18-NOV-03 MARSHALL,JR., FP~CIS E WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAR~CE OF JOSEPH WALKER ESQ. AMD ENTRY ,DF APPEARANCE OF FRANCIS MARSHALL ESQ. ON BEHALF OF DEFTS DR. SAMIR SROUJI AND PLASTIC SURGERY FILED. ORDER ENTERED/236 NOTICE GIVEN 28-JAN-04 DINUBILE, JR., VICTOR J IT IS ORDERED THAT, FOLLOWING A REVIEW OF JUDGE WETTICK'$ ORDER ENTERED 4/26/01, SAID ORDER SHALL BE ENTERED IN THE ABOVE LITIGATION AS CASE M3YNAGEMENT ORDER #15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PURSU~YNT THERETO THE PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS AMD CROSSCLAIMS AGAINST DEFT, MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORP AMD RELATED ENTITIES, IN EACH ACTION FILED IN PHILA COUNTY AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT "G" AND EXHIBIT "K" ATTACHED HEREWITH AMD MA2DE A PART HEREOF. BY THE COURT ...DINUBILE,J 1/28/04 WITHDRAWAL/ENTRY OF APPEARANCE il-FEB-04 MARSEALL,JR., FRANCIS E WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE OF ALLA~ STARR AND ENTRY OF APPEAR3YNCE OF FRANIS E. MARSHALL, JR. AMD THOMAS M. CHAIRS 0N BEHALF OF HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL AND PLASTIC SURGERY FILED. LISTED FOR TRIAL 04-MAR-04 TRANSFER TO OTHER JURISDICTION 04-MAR-04 DINUBILE, JR., VICTOR J TRANSFERRED TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY .... 3/4/04 BY THE COURT: JUDGE VICTOR J. DINUBILE, JR. NOTICE GIVEN UNDER RULE 236 04-MAR-04 PRAECIPE/TRNSFER OUT OF COUNTY 20-JUL-04 MARSHALL,JR., FRANCIS E PRAECIPE TO TRJYNSFER THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT FILED. BTP * * * End of Docket * * * AUG 6 2004 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY PROTHONOTARY'S OFFICE Phila. Case Number: Dear Sir/Madam: By order of the FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Philadelphia County, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, the enclosed case(s) are traiisferred to the COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF~-- --- ---~ -.- ,,- ~- - // /J/x--/~:P.~',O/~:7A//'~ COUNTY. Accordingly, I am enclosing all related filings. I would appreciate the return of the attached green receipt addressed to the attention of: THE PROTHONOTARY'S OFFICE CERTIFICATION UNIT ROOM 266 CITY HALL PHILADELPHIA. PA 19107 ATTENTION: JOSEPH MANGINI If you have any questions, please call 215-686-6663. Very truly yours, Joseph Mangini 10-279W ~ON PLEAS COURTS OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL LISTING SECTION TRIAL WORK SHEET Event: , at / / : in Scheduled: / / , JURY MT - MASS TORT Caption: '~ Case Type: DOYLE VS. ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORP., ET AL T2 - MASS TORT ..................... + ....................................... IMPLANT Term and Number': I If Consolidated: BREAST) ~9408-02662 I Term and Number(s) TRIAL ACTUAL: TOTAL AMOUNT NUMBER OF DATE SHEET DATE: ( ) JURY DAYS PREPARED ( ) NON-JURY FULL DESCRIPTION OF DISPOSITION (To Be Entered VERBATIM On The Docket): DEFAULT JUDGMENT/COURT ORDERED DISPOSITIVE MOTION GRANTED DIRECTED VERDICT DISCONTINUANCE ORDERED DISCONTINUE/TRkNSFER BINDING ARB FINDING FOR DEFENDANT FINDING FOR PLAINTIFF DAMAGES ASSESSED JUDGMENT ENTERED BY AGREEMENT JUDGMENT ENTERED CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) JURY VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF JURY VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT MISTRIAL HUNG JURY ) NON-PROS ENTERED NON-SUIT ENTERED SETTLED PRIOR TO ASSIGNMENT FOR TRIAL (TEAM LEADERS,only) SETTLED AFTER ASSIGNMENT FOR TRIAL TRANSFERRED TO OTHER JURISDICTION OTHER (EXPLAIN) DOCKETED ~.~OMPLEX LIT CENTER MAR 4 200 I.. RYANT-DAVIS COMMON PLEAS COURTS OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL LISTING SECTION TRIAL WORK SHEET Plaintiff's Attorney(s): JAMIE SHELLER PHONE # (215)790-7300 SHELLER,LUDWIG & BADEY 1528 WALNUT ST.3RD FL. PHILADELPHIA PA 19102 Defendant's Attorney(s): NREP 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS 1600 CITIZEN PLAZA LOUISVILLE KY 40202 PHONE # ANDREW J. CONNOLLY POST & SCHELL, P.C. FOUR PENN CENTER 1600 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVAR PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 PHONE (215) 587-1000 BARBARA GOTTHELF MCCARTER & ENGLISH ONE COMMERCE SQUARE 2005 MARKET ST SUITE 3250 PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 PHONE (215) 557-7700 FRANCIS E. MARSHALL,JR. 1323 NORTH FRONT ST. WEST END PA 17102 PHONE (000)236-7300 GLENN P. CALLAHAN MCCARTER & ENGLIS LLP 1735 MARKET ST 700 MELLON BANK CENTER PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 JOHN J. LEONARD 1515 MARKET STREET SUITE 1800 PHILADELPHIA PA 19102 LINDA P. SWEENEY 40 EASTGR3kNT STLANCASTER, WILLOW VIEW HEIGHTS PA 17602 PHONE # PHONE PHONE (215)979-3800 (000) 567-1530 (000) 293-1234 ROBERT M. BRITTON POST & SCHELL, P.C. FOUR PENN CENTER 1600 JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVAR PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 THERESE M. KEELEY KEELEY & CALLAHAN, 124 SUNSET BLVD. CAPE MAY NJ 08204 P,Co PHONE PHONE (215)587-1000 (609)884-0700 COMMON PLEAS COURTS OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL LISTING SECTION TRIAL WORK SHEET Plaintiff's Attorney(s): LEONARD V. FODERA PHONE # (215)561-2100 ELEVEN PENN CENTER, SUITE 260 1835 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 Defendant's Attorney(s): NREP ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORP 5425 HOLLISTER AVE C/O GARY MISTLIN MENTORCORP SANTA BARBARA CA 93111 PHONE # NREP AESTHETECH CORP 3003 ROLLIE LAKES PASO ROBLES CA 93446 PHONE # ANDREW Jo CONNOLLY POST & SCHELL, P.C. 4 PENN CENTER, 13TH FLOOR 1600 J.F.K BLVD. PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 PHONE # (215)587-1000 NREP NREP APPLIED SILICONE CORP 320 WEST STANLEY AVENUE VENTURA CA 93001 ARTHUR MURPHY, JR. 326 THIRD AVE. SUITE 100 PGH PA 15222 BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP DELAWA ONE BAXTER PARKWAY BANNOCKBURN IL 60015 PHONE # PHONE # PHONE # (000)255-0200 NREP BAXTER INTERNATIONAL ONE BAXTER PKWY PHILADELPHIA PA 60015 BRUCE H. BIKIN MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN FIDELITY BLDG, 123 S.BROAD PHILADELPHIA PA 19109 PHONE # PHONE # (000)772-7222 NREP C JAMES ZESZUTEK THORP REED & ARMSTRONG LLP ONE OXFORD CENTRE 301 GR3kNT STREET PITTSBURGH PA 15219 COX-UPHOFF INTERNATIONAL 1160 MARK AVE CARPINTERIA CA 93013 CRAIG A. STONE 319 MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 966 HARRISBURG PA 17108 PHONE # PHONE # PHONE # (412)394-7779 (000)234-4161 NREP DOW CORNING CORP PHONE # NREP ~NONE PHILADELPHIA PA 19100 DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORP NONE PHILADELPHIA PA 19100 NREP MICHAEL KEATING, III HOLLSTEIN KEATING CATTELL JOHNSON & GOLDSTEIN 1628 J.F.K. BLVD. SUITE 200 PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 FPuANCIS E. MARSHALL,JR. 1323 NORTH FRONT ST. WEST END PA 17102 MULS AMERICA INC 80 CENTENNIAL AVE PHILADELPHIA PA 08855 JEREMY D. MISHKIN MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN FIDELITY BLDG, 123 S.BROAD PHILADELPHIA PA 19109 NREP KNOLL INTERNATIONAL HOLDING 1600 CITIZENS PLAZA (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) PHONE # PHONE PHONE # PHONE # PHONE # PHONE # (215)320-3260 (000)236-7300 (000) 772-7246 COMMON PLEAS COURTS OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL LISTING SECTION TRIAL WORK SHEET NREP PHILADELPHIA PA 40202 MCGHAN NUSIL CORP 1055-B CINDY LANE CARPINTERIA CA 93013 ROBERT M. BRITTON POST & SCHELL~ P.C. 4 PENN CENTER, 13TH FLOOR 1600 J,F,K. BLVD. PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 GORDON ELKINS 2600 ONE COMMERCE SQUARE PHILA., PA. PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 THOMAS M. CHAIRS 20 S 36TH STREET CAMP HILL PA 17011 PHONE # PHONE # PHONE # PHONE # (215)587-1000 (000)564-8120 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: THOMAS M. CHAIRS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hil~, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 (Tel) (717) 731-4803 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR: Samir Srouji, M.D., and Plastic Surgery, P.C. DEBORAH ANN DOYLE and JOHN MACK DOYLE, wife and husband Plaintiff VS. ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORPORATION; AESTHETECH CORPORATION; APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION; BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB AND COMPANY; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC~; COOPER SURGICAL, INC.; COX-UPHOFF, DOW CORINING CORPORATION; DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; HULS AMERICA, IN(;.; INAMED CORPORATION; 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, iNC.; MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION; MCGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION; MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION; MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.; SCOTT PAPER COMPANY; SIROD CORPORAITON; UNION CARBIDE CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. INC.; SAMIR SROUJI, M.D., PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C. AND HOLY SPiRiT HOSPITAL Defendants No. 2662 August 1994 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION OF COUNSEL It is hereby STIPULATED and AGREED by counsel for Plaintiffs, Jamie U Sheller, Esquire and counsel for Defendants, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire that this matter be transferred from the Court of Common Please of Philadelphia County, at No. 884 of 1995, to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County which is the site of Plaintiffs' medical treatment which is the basis for this lawsuit. A(torney for Plalntiffs Francis E. Marshall, Jr. E[q. A Itozney for Dr, Srou~i andPlastlc Surger)~ P.C. and Holy Spirit Hospital SBI201 Robert S. Forster, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 17899 KRUSEN EVANS & BYRNE The Curtis Center 601 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3393 (215) 923-4400 Attorney for Dow Corning Corporation DEBORAH ANN DOYLE AND JOHN MACK DOYLE, w/h, Pl~Jntiffs, COURT OF COMMON PLF-~S CIVIL ACTION - LAW AUGUST TERM, 1994 NO. 2662 American Hospital Supply Corp., American Heyer-Schulte Corporation, Travenol Labs, Inc., and Baxter Travenol Labs, Inc.; BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB AND COMPANY, f/k/a Bristol-Meyers Co.; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC., individually and as successor in interest to Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. and Aesthetech Formerly Known as Coopervision, Inc.; COOPER SURGICAL, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Cooper Companies, Inc.; COX-UPHOFF a/k/a CUI Corporation; DOW CORNING CORPORATION; DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; HUI~ AMFamCA, INC., f/lda Petrarach Systems, Inc.; INAMED CORPORATION; 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., f/k/a Knoll International Holdings, Inc. (f/Ma Foamex Products, Inc) f/k/a Scoffoam Corporation f/k~a General Felt Industries, Inc. f/Ma Eddy Acquisitions now operat'mg under the fmtitious name of Foamex, a Division of KIHI; McGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION (a California Corporation) and McGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION (a Delaware Corporation); McGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION aJk/a Nusil Technologies; MEDICAL F_NGII~.RRING CORPORATION d/b/a Surgitek a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; MINNF_~OTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., individually and as a successor in interest to McGhan Medical Coq~oration (a California Corporation) a]k/a 3M and McGhan Medical Corporation; NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.; SCOTT PAPER COMPANY; SIROD CORPORATION; UNION CARBIDE CI-IF_~IC~ AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC. UNION CARBIDI~ CORPORATION, INC.; WILSI-IIR~ TECHNOLOGIES, INC., f/Ma WILSHIP~ FOAM PRODUCTS, INC.; SAMIR SROUJI, M.D.; PLASTIC SURGF. RY P.C.; and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendants. NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL PLRASE TAKE NOTICE that on [0[~ , 1995, Dow Corning Corporation fried a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, removing only the claims against Dow Coming Corp./Dow Coming Wright Corp. identified in the Notice of Removal. A copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto and hereby served on you. Robert S. FOrster, Esquire Attorney for Dow Coming Corporation TERMED REMAND U.S. District Court USDC for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 95-CV-18285 Doyle v. Admiral Materials Assigned to: Chief Judge Sam C Pointer, Jr Demand: $0,000 Lead Docket: None Dkt # in PAE : is 2:95--06372 Dkt # in MDL : is 926 Filed: 12/11/95 Nature of Suit: 365 Jurisdiction: Diversity Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability DEBORAH ANN DOYLE plaintiff Pla's Liaison Counsl (205) 252-0423 fax [COR] HARE WYNNNEWELL & NEWTON Massey Building, Suite 800 290 21st Street, North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 328-5330 JOHN MACK DOYLE plaintiff Vo MCGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION defendant Dft's Liaison Counsl (513) 977-8141 fax [COR] DINSMORE & SHOHL Chemed Center, Suite 1900 255 East 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 977-8200 DOW CORNING CORPORATION defendant HULS AMERICA, INC. defendant HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL defendant Docket as of October 16, 1997 9:50 am Page 1 Proceedings include all events. 2:95cv18285 Doyle v. Admiral Materials PLASTIC SURGERY INC defendant SAMIR SPROUJI defendant 3M COMPANY defendant BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION defendant SCOTT PAPER COMPANY defendant [term 05/20/97] GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY defendant NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES INC defendant INAMED CORPORATION defendant BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, INC. defendant AESTHETECH CORPORATION defendant MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION defendant 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC defendant [term 05/20/97] TERMED REMAND Docket as of October 16, 1997 9:50 am Page 2 Proceedings include all events. 2:95cv18285 Doyle v. Admiral Materials SIROD CORPORATION defendant TERMED REMAND DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION defendant MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION defendant PALMER JACKSON defendant COX-UPHOFF INCORPORATED defendant WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC defendant COOPERSURGICAL, INC defendant UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC. defendant ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORPORATION defendant APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION defendant Docket as of October 16, 1997 9:50 am Page 3 Proceedings include all events. 2:95cv18285 Doyle v. Admiral Materials 12/11/95 1 TERMED REMAND ORDER of JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (CTO #78) dated 11/20/95, stay lifted 12/6/95 transferring additional cases into this court for inclusion in MDL 926 filed [initial case of CTO #95-18134]; certified copy of order w/transmittal letter requesting certified copy of docket entries mailed to transferror clerks (sh) [Entry date 12/12/95] 12/22/95 2 Original court file and/or certified copy of docket entries from clerk of tranferror court received and filed (sf) [Entry date 01/04/96] 3/3/97 3 JOINDER in RESPONSE by defendant Samir Sprouji of liaison counsel to pltf's motion for severance filed cs (sf) 3/19/97 4 MOTION by defendant Holy Spirit Hospital to join response of certain nondebtor healthcare providers to pltf's motion for severance or in the alternative for conditional dismissal with prejudice and motion to remand filed cs (sf) 5/20/97 5 ORDER 30G 5/20/97 dism 14 dfts see doc 1450 2:92-cv-10000 (cr) [Entry date 07/05/97] 5/27/97 NOTICE of severance of dft Dow Corning per doc case filed (jlm) [Entry date 05/29/97] [Edit date 06/05/97] 1957 in lead 10/14/97 ORDER #39A remanding case to Philadelphia County PA with certified copy of order, docket sheet and original record mailed to state court filed (by Chief Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr ) cm (jlm) [Entry date 10/15/97] Docket as of October 16, 1997 9:50 am Page 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DEBORAH DOYLE AND JOHN DOYLE, Plaintiffs, V. CiVIL DIVISION No. 2662 August 1994 Ci MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY Filed on behalf of Defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company Counsel of Record for this Party: C. James Zeszutek, Esq. PA I.D. No. 22071 Kimberly A. Brown, Esq. PA I.D. No. 56200 THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG, LLP One Oxford Centre 301 Grant Street, 14th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15223 (412) 394-2323 00305756.DOC IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AS THE COORDINATING COURT FOR SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION THORP, REED AND ARMSTRONG, LLP By: C. James Zeszutek I.D. No. 22071 Kimberly A. Brown I.D. No. 56200 One R.iverfront Center 20 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 394-7711 Attorneys for Defendant Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company B ERN'ITA FORD, Plaintiff, VS. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. IN RE: SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY MARCH TERM, 1992 NO. 3653 ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING DEFENDANT, MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND NOW. this .2.. g" day of April ,200 % this matter having come before the Court upon the application of Thorp, Reed and Armstrong, LLP, attorneys for defendant Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company ('3M"), for consideration of the Petition for Leave to Discontinue Action against Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company as to Settled Cases, it appearing that 3M has advised this court that service has been made by the manufacturing defendants, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 440, on every party that may be affected by this order of court with a notice advising the party to file legal papers setting forth any opposition to the Petition for Leave to Discontinue Action as to the lawsuits described in this court order, it appearing that plaintiffs' Steering Committee Counsel does not oppose the entry of a court order dismissing with prejudice 3M as a defendant or an additional defendant (1) in any pending Pennsylvania state court lawsuits of any plaintiffs who did not opt out of the federal settlement and .(2) in any pending state court lawsuits of any plaintiffs who opted out of the federal settlement but subsequently settled their claims with 3M, and it appearing that my office has not received legal papers from any party opposing the entry of a court order dismissing with prejudice all claims raised by any party against 3M, it is ORDERED that: 1. Ail claims and crossclaims raised by any party against 3M are dismissed with prejudice in any lawsuits described in this court order. 2. The remaining co-defendants will be entitled to offer evidence at trial of the settled defendant's liability in accordance with the June 11, 1998 Order of the Coordinating Court and will be entitled to a reduction of any judgment entered against 2 them, any reduction to be equal to 3M's proportionate share of causal liability, if! any, for plaintiff's injuries as determined by the factfinder at trial. 3. This Order o~ Court dismissing 3M original order issued in these cases. Copies will be the only of this Order of filed by 3M in each case Court Dismissing Defendant 3M shall be described in this court order and shall serve for purposes of filing as identical to the original and should be accepted as if the original in these cases. BY THE COURT: 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY was served via U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 2~a day of July, 2001, on the following counsel of record: SEE ATTACHED LIST 00302262.DOC D. DOYLE SERVICE LIST REVISED: 6/13/01 DOC. 00108744 Jamie L. Sheller, Esq. SHELLER LUDWIG & BADEY 1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 E. Michael Keating, Ili, Esq. HOLLSTEIN KEATING CATTELL JOHNSON and GOLDSTEIN, P.C. 1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1602 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Gilda L. Kramer, Esq. GILDA L. KRAMER, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Madeline M. Sherry, Esq. HECKER BROWN SHERRY & JOHNSON, LLP 1700 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769 Jeremy D. Mishkin, Esq. MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS 123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 Robert M. Britton, Esq. POST & SCHELL, P.C. 19t~ Floor, 1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Robert S. Forster, Jr., Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 -7286 Allan H. Starr, Esq. WH1TE & WILLIAMS Suite 1800 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA l 9103-7395 Teresa Caldwell, Esq. Mentor Corporation Legal Department 5425 Hollister Avenue Santa Barbara, CA 93111 Therese M. Keeley, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phillip A. Baker, Esquire BAKER KEENER & NAHRA 2850 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90405-2936 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DEBORAH DOYLE AND JOHN DOYLE, Plaintiffs, BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, iNC.; et al., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION No. 2662, August 1994 ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC. Filed on behalf of Defendants Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Baxter International Inc. Counsel of Record for this Party: Madeline M. Sherry, Esq. PA I.D. No, 31549 HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON, LLP 1700 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 (2 l 5) 446-6201 IN lq-IB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AS THE COORDINATING COURT FOR SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION HECKER, BROWN, SHERRY & JOHNSON By: Mad¢line M. Sharry I.D. No.31549 1700 Two Logan Square 18t~ & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 446-6201 Attorneys for Defendants Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Baxter International Inc. BERNITA FORD, Plaintiff, VS. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. IN RE: SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY MARCH TERM, 1992 NO. 3653 ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING DEFENDANTS, BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC, AND NOW, this ~. day of April , 2001, this matter having come before the Court upon the application of Hecker Brown Sherry and Johnson, attorneys for defendants Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Baxter International Inc. ("Baxter"),~ for ~ The Petition for Leave to Discontinue and Order of Court Dismissing Baxter includes all entities and individuals identified in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. consideration of the Motion for Leave to Discontinue Action against Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Baxter International Inc. as to Settled Cases, it appearing that Baxter has advised this court that service has been made by the manufacturing defendants, pursuant to Pa.R.C.Po No. 440, on every party that may be affected by this order of court with a notice advising the party to file legal papers setting forth any opposition to the Petition for Leave to Discontinue Action as to the lawsuits described in this court order, it appearing that plaintiffs' Steering Committee Counsel does not oppose the entry of a court order dismissing with prejudice Baxter as a defendant or an additional defendant (1) in any pending Pennsylvania state court lawsuits of any plaintiffs who did not opt out of the federal settlement and (2) in any pending state court lawsuits of any plaintiffs who opted out of the federal settlement but subsequently settled their claims with Baxter, and it appearing that my office has not received legal papers from any party opposing the entry of a court order dismissing with prejudice all claims raised by any party against Baxter, it is ORDERED that: 1. All claims and crossclaims raised by any party against Baxter are dismissed with prejudice in any lawsuits described in this court order. 2. The remaining co-defendants will be entitled to offer evidence at trial of the settled defendant's liability in 2 accordance with the June 11, 1998 O~der of the Coordinating Court and will be entitled to a reduction of any judgment entered against them, any reduction to be equal to Baxter's proportionate share of causal liability, if any, for plaintiff's injuries as determined by the factfinder at trial. 3. This Order of Court dismissinG Baxter will be the only original order issued in these cases. Copies of this Order of Court Dismissing Defendant Baxter shall be filed by Baxter in each case described in this court order and shall serve for purposes of filing as identical to the original and should be accepted as if the original in these cases. BY T}{E COURT: 3 EXHIBIT "A~' List o f Baxter'defendants: Allegiance Corporation Allegiance Healthcare Canada Inc. Allegiance Healthcare Corporation Allegiance Healthcare International, Inc, American Heyer-Schulte Corp. f/k/a Heyer-SchuRe Corp. American Hospital Supply Corp. Franklin L. Ashley Baxter Acquisition Sub., Inc. Baxter Corporation Baxter Healthcare Corp. Baxter International Inc. Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc, Baxter World Trade Corp. Lawrence Birnbaum Robert Bishop Cabot Medical Corp. Angelo Cappozzi Edward Laboratories, Inc. John Hartley Richard P. $obe Markham Medical Association Markham Medical International Inc. Markham Surgical Specialties Markham/M Surgical Mark/M Resources, Inc. W. John Pangman, II Vincent R. Pennisi Poly Plastic Silicone Products, Inc. Schulte Medical Products Diran M. Seropian H.E. Sterling Kuros Tabari Travenol Laboratories, Inc. Kart Wagner Edward Weck, Inc. Edward Weck & Company, Inc. John L. Williams PHI: 351(10.01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The tmdersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION AND BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, 1NC. was served via U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 16th day of July, 2001, on the following counsel of record: SEE ATTACHED LIST HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON By: M d61ine M Sh rry E qu~ Attorney I.D. No. 31549 1700 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665~0400 Attorneys for Defendant, Baxter Healthcare Corporation D. DOYLE SERVICE LIST Jamie L. Sheller, Esq. SHELLER LUDWIG & BADEY 1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 E. Michael Keating, HI, Esq. HOLLSTEIN KEATING CATTELL JOHNSON and GOLDSTEIN, P.C. 1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1602 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Gilda L. Kramer, Esq. GILDA L. KRAMEtL ATTORNEY AT LAW 1500 Walnut Street, Suite l I00 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Kimberly A. Brown, Eaquire THORP RP.~.D & ARMSTRONG One Oxford Cent~ 3(Jl Grant Street, 14~ Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1425 Jeremy D. Mishkin, Esq. MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS 123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 Robert M. Bt'iRon, Esq. POST & SCHELL, P.C. 19~h Floor, 1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Robext S. Forster, Jr., Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 -7286 Allan H. Stair, Esq. WHITE & WILLIAMS Suite 1800 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 -7395 Teresa Caldwell, Esq. Mentor Corporation Legal Department 5425 Hollister Avenue Santa Barbara, CA 93111 Therese M. Keeley, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phillip A. Baker, Esquire BAKER KEENER & NAHRA 2850 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Mouica, CA 90405-2936 THE COURT OF OF PHILADELPHIA CO ~. ~q 30 PRO DEBORAH ANN DOYLE and CiVIL DIVISION JOHN MACK DOYLE Plaintiff, August Term, 1994 v. No. 2662 COOPER SURGICAL, 1NC., et al Defendants, ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION Filed on behalf of Defendant Medical Engineering Corporation Counsel of Record for this Party: Therese M. Keeley, Esquire PA Identification No. 40813 McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP One Commerce Square, Suite 3600 2005 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 557-7700 PHI: 88249.01 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AS THE COORDINATING COURT FOR SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP By: Therese M. Keeley I.D. No. 40813 One Commerce Square 2005 Market St., Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 557-7700 Attorneys for Defendants Medical Engineering Corporation and related entities B ERNITA FORD, Plaintiff, VS. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY MARCH TERM, 1992 NO. 3653 IN RE: SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING DEFENDANT MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND NOW, this 2-~ day of Apr J-1 ,200!, this matter having come before the Court upon the application of McCarter & English, LLP, attorneys for defendant Medical Engineering Corporation ("MEC"),~ for consideration of the Petition for Leave to ~ The Petition for Leave to Discontinue and the Order of Court Dismissing MEC includes a!l entities and individuals identified in Exhibit B which is anached hereto and incorporated herein. Discontinue Action against Medical Engineering Corporation as to Settled Cases, it appearing that. MEC has advised this court that service has been made by the manufacturing defendants, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 440, on every party that may be affected by this order of court with a notice advising the party to file legal papers setting forth any opposition to the Petition for Leave to Discontinue Action as to the lawsuits described in this court order, it appearing that plaintiffs' Steering Committee Counsel does not oppose the entry of a court order dismissing with prejudice MEC as a defendant or an additional defendant (1) in any pending Pennsylvania state court lawsuits of any plaintiffs who did not opt out of the federal settlement and (2) in any pending state court lawsuits of any plaintiffs who opted out of the federal settlement but subsequently settled their claims with MEC, and it appearing that my office has not received legal papers from any party opposing the entry of a court order dismissing with prejudice all claims raised by any party against MEC, it is ORDERED that: 1. Ail claims and crossclaims raised by any party against MEC are dismissed with prejudice in any lawsuits described in this court order. 2. The remaining co-defendants will be entitled to offer evidence at trial of the settled defendant's liability in accordance with the June 11, 1998 Order of the Coordinating Court and will be entitled to a reduction o~f any judgment entered against 2 them, any reduction to be equal to MEC's proportionate share of causal liability, if any, for~plaintiff's injuries as determined by the factfinder at trial. 3. This Order of Court dismissing MEC will be the only original order issued in these cases. Copies of this Order of Court Dismissing Defendant MEC shall be filed by MEC in each case described in this court order and shall serve for purposes of filing as identical to the original and should be accepted as if the original in these cases. BY THE COURT: 3 EXHIBIT "B" List of MEC defendants: Defendants and Released Parties are defined to mean: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA; INC., BRISTOL-MYERS COMPANY; CONVATEC; LINVATEC CORPORATION; COOPER SURGICAL, INC.; THE COOPER COMPANIES, [NC.; COOPERVISION, INC4 CV SUB 1987, [NC.; AESTHETECH CORPORATION; MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION; MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION dgo/a SURGI/EK; INC., MEC SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION f/k/a SURGITEK, INC.; SURGI/EK, INC.; NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.; SIROD CORPORATION; CVI MERGER CORPORATION; CBI MEDICAL, INC.; CABOT MEDICAL CORPORATION; CBI MEDICAL, INC. n/Ida and/or a./k/a CBI MEDICAL ELECTRONICS, INC.; ROBERT BISHOP; ROBERT J. HELBLING, MEC SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION; EDWARD WECK, INC.; EDWARD WECK & COMPANY, INC.; JACQUELINE MARICHAA4; HAROLD MARKHAM; LOTTIE MARKHAM; MARKHAM MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; MARKHAM SURGICAL SPECIALTIES; MARKHAM MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; MARK/'M RESOURCES, INC.; MARK/M SURGICAL; POLY PLASTIC SILICONE PRODUCTS, INC.; REAL LAPPIERE; SUMMIT MEDICAL CORPORATION; DERWOOD FARIES; VICICI GALATI; WILSH[RE FOAM PRODUCTS; INC., WILSHIRE ADVANCED MATER/ALS, INC.; WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; ZIMMER INTERNATIONAL; AND ZIMMER, INC., together with their subsidiaries, divisions, subdivisions, sister companies, affiliates, controlled corporations: partners, partnerships, parent corporations, successor and predecessor corporations, officers, ' directors, representatives, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any and all other persons, finns and/or corporation. DEBORAH ANN DOYLE - COUNSEL LIST Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire Sheller, Ludwig & Badey 1528 Walnut Street Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert M. Britton, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, '21' International Holdings, Inc. and Scott Paper Company Gilda L. Kramer, Esquire 1500 Walnut Street Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Defendants, Applied Silicone Corp and Nusil Technology Madeline Sherry, Esquire Hecker, Brown, Sherry & Johnson 1700 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, Baxter Healthcare Corp. and Baxter International, Inc. E. Michael Keating, III, Esquire Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein P.C. Suite 1602 1608 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendant, General Electric Company Jeremy Mishkin, Esquire Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads 123 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 Attorneys for Defendant, Union Carbide Corp. Allan H. Start, Esquire White and Williams 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital C. James Zeszutek, Esquire Thorpe, Reed & Armstrong One Riverfront Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Attorneys for Defendants, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company Joseph M. Walker, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 10 North Main Street Doylestown, PA 18902 Attorney for Defendant, Samir Srouji PHI: 27918.01 DEBORAH ANN DOYLE and JOHN MACK DOYLE, wife and husband Plaintiff VS. ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORPORATION; AESTHETECH CORPORATION; APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION; BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB AND COMPANY; THE COOPER COMPANiP~;, 1NC.; COOPER SURGICAL, INC.; COX-UPHOFF, DOW CORINING CORPORATION; DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; HULS AMERICA, INC.; INAMED CORPORATION; 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.; MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION; MCGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION; MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION;: MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.; SCOTT PAPER COMPANY; SIROD CORPORAITON; UNION CARBIDE CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. INC.; SAMIR SROUJI, M.D., PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C. AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants : No. 2662 : August 1994 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE Please withdraw the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Dr. and Plastic Surgery in the above-captioned matter. Samir Srouji Dated: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER Attorney I.D. No: 02417 20 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Dr. Samir Srouji and Plastic Surgery. Dated: Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY, CHILCOTE, P.C. ~7~/~7J; ~4Esquire ~ 20 S. 36~h Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-4800 DEBORAH ANN DOYLE and JOHN MACK DOYLE, wife and husband Plaintiff VS. ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORPORATION; AESTHETECH CORPORATION; APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION; BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; BAXTER iNTERNATIONAL, INC.; BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB AND COMPANY; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.; COOPER SURGICAL, INC.; COX-UPHOFF, DOW CORINING CORPORATION; DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION~ GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; HULS AMERICA, INC.; INAMED CORPORATION; 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.; MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION; MCGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION; MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION; MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.; SCOTT PAPER COMPANY; SIROD CORPORAITON; UNION CARBIDE CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, IN(;. INC.; SAMIR SROUJI, M.D., PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C. AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants No. 2662 August 1994 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE Please withdraw the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital in the above-captioned matter. White & Williams, LLP Allan Starr, Esquire 1800 One I_iberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395 (216) 864-7000 PRAECII~E TO ENTER APPEARANCE Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital and Plastic Surgery. Dated: / ~//~/~ ~/'~ '~ Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY, CHI/COTE, P.C. Francis E. Marshall, Jr. Esquire Attorney I.D. No: 27594 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Attorney I.D. No: 78565 20 S. 36t" Street CampHili, PA 17011 (717) 731-4800 DEBORAH ANN DOYLE and JOHN : No. 2662 MACK DOYLE, wife and husband : August 1994 Plaintiff VS. ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORPORATION; : AESTHETECH CORPORATION; APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION; BAXTER : HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; BAXTER : INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BRISTOL-MEYERS : SQUIBB AND COMPANY; THE COOPER : COMPANIES, INC.; COOPER SURGICAL, : INC.; COX-UPHOFF, DOW CORINING : CORPORATION; DOW CORNING .' WRIGHT CORPORATION; GENERAL : ELECTRIC CO.; HULS AMERICA, INC.; : INAMED CORPORATION; 21 : INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.; : MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION; : MCGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION; : MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION; : MINNESOTA MINING & : MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; : NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, : INC.; SCOTT PAPER COMPANY; SIROD CORPORAITON; UNION CARBIDE CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS COMPANY, : INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; : WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. INC.; : SAMIR SROUJI, M.D., PLASTIC : SURGERY, P.C. AND HOLY SPIRIT : HOSPITAL : Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~ day of February, 2004, I, Thomas M. Chairs, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw Appearance and Praecipe to Enter Appearance upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. addressed as follows: Jamie L. Sheller, Esq. John P. Kopesky, Esq. Sheller, Ludwig & Badey Third Floor 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Plaintiff Admiral Materials Corporation 5425 Hollister Avenue Santa Barbara, CA 93111 Robert S. Forster, Esq. McKissok & Hoffmae 1700 Market Street Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Robert M. Britton, Esq. Andrew J. Connolly, Esq. Post & Schell, P.C. Four Penn Center 1600 J.F.K. Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for 21 International Holdings, Inc., Foamex Products, Inc., General Felt Industries, Scotfoam Corporation, and Scott Paper Company C. James Zeszutek, Esq. Kimberly A. Brown, Esq. Thorpe, Reed & Armstrong One Oxford Center 301 Grand Street, 14~h Fir. Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for McGhan Medical Corporation and learned Corporation S. Gordon Elkins, Esq. Donna Dever, Esq. Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young 2600 One Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098 Counsel for: The Cooper Companies, Inc., Cooper Surgical, Inc., Bristol-Meyers Squibb & Co., Sirod Corporation, Natural Y Surgical Specialties Cox-Uphoff 1160 Mark Avenue Carpinteria, CA 92714-6228 Huls America, Inc. 80 Centennial Avenue Piscataway, NJ 08855-0456 H. Michael Keating, III, Esq. Holstein, Keating, Cattel], Johnson & Goldstein 1628 J.F.K. Blvd. Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for General Electric Jeremy D. Mishkin, Esq. Bruce H. Bikin, Esq. Montgomery McCracken Fidelity Building 123 S. Broad Philadelphia, PA 19109 Counsel for Union Carbide Corporation and Union Carbide Chemicals Arthur Murphy, Jr., Esq. 326 Third Avenue Suite 100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Wilshire Technologies Allan H. Start, Esq. White & Williams, LLP One Liberty Place Suite 1800 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395 Counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital McGhan Nusil Corporation 1055-B Cindy Lane Carpinteria, CA 93013 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTItERN DISTRICT OF ALA~JAMA Southern Division t27 ~? I [, ~;~ 9:02 Inre: SILICONE GELBREAST ~_ )~.~ Master File CV 92-P-1001Xl--S. IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITYpRoV.:TT_ , listed in Appendix) LITIGATION (MDL-926) ) (Applies to cases~ ~ OCT,1 4 1997 ~em~g L~ted C~es to State Court) C ~ ~t to Order No. 39, ~d a~er co~idering ~e respo~es of~e paaies (as discussed in Opi~on No. 39A filed concurrently herewi~), it is ORDERED as follows: 1. ~e cases listed ~ ~e append~ to ~is order will be remanded to the indicated state courts upon docketing and entu of orders previously signed in such cases and subject to the terns and conditio~ of this order. 2. The terms and conditions under which such remands are effected are as follows: (a) All claims against Dow Coming Corp. and Dow Coming Wright (including any crossclaims or third-party claims by defendants against Dow Corning Corp. or Dow Coming Wright) are, to the extent not previously dismissed, severed and not remanded. Such claims are, however, administratively closed in this court and dismissed without prejudice to the institution and pursuit of such claims in the United States District and Bankruptcy Courts for the Eastern District of Michigan in accordance with procedures established in those courts. This court retains jurisdiction to vacate such dismissals and reopen such claims against Dow Coming on written motion if filed within 30 days after reorganization proceedings of Dow Corning are dismissed or within 30 days after the Eastern District of Michigan determines that reopening of such cases against Dow Coming is the procedure to be followed in liquidating such claims. (b) All claims by any party against The Dow Chemical Company, Inc. and Dow Holdings Inc. are, to the extent not previously dismissed or transferred, severed and transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which will determine whether any of such claims should be remanded (or allowed to proceed in state court as a consequence of federal court abstention). (c) As explained in Order No. 30 and Order No. 30G, all claims against the following companies have been dismissed with prejudice: Bioplasty, Inc.; Bio-Manufacturing, Inc.; Cabott Medical Corporation; Corning, Inc.; Foamex Products, Inc.; General Felt Industries, Inc.; Knoll International Holdings, Inc.; Recticel Foam Corporation; Scotfoam Corporation; Scott Paper Company; Surgitek, Inc.; '2 I' International Holdings, Inc; '21' Foam Company, Inc.; and Umplasty, Inc. (d) Any claims agaiust Mentor Corporation; Mentor Polymer Tectmologies, Inc.; Mentor O&O, Inc.; Mentor H/S, Inc.; Mentor Urology, Inc.; Mentor International, Inc.; and Teknar Corp. relating to breast implants implanted before June 1, 1993, are dismissed with prejudice. 1" DISTRICT DEPUTY CLERK (e) All claims against General Electric Company have been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Order No. 38. The plaintiffs in the listed remanded cases have, by not responding to the show cause directions contained in Order No. 39, disavowed any participation in any appeal with respect to Order No. 38. (f) Any claims against Union Carbide Corporation based on its 1990-1992 ownership of McGhan NuSil Corporation remanded to the indicated state courts, but may be pursued in state court only upon demonstration that the plaintiffs, if eligible, timely opted out of the original Global Settlement or the Revised Settlement Program provided by that defendant. All other claims against Union Carbide Corporation, as well as all claims against Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc., have been dismissed with prejudice pursuant m Order No. 37, and the plaintiffs in the listed remanded cases have, by not responding to the show cause directions contained in Order No. 39, disavowed any participation in any appeal with respect to Order No. 37. (g) All claims against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Medical Engineering Corp., Baxter Healthcare Corp., Baxter International Inc., and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. ("3M"), and their subsidiaries are remanded to the indicated state courts, but may be pursued in state court only upon demonstration that the plaintiffs, ff eligible, timely opted out of the original Global Settlement or the Revised Settlement Program ("RSP") provided by those defendants. This court expects plaintiffs to file in state court, after remand, voluntary dismissals of claims against settling defendants that are precluded by the RSP and will retain jurisdiction to enforce by injunctive decree, if necessary, restrictions against pursuit of such claims. NOTE: THOSE CASES MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) MERIT SPECIAL ATi'ENTION AS TO DEMONSTRATION OF OPTOUT. A SEARCH BY DEFENDANTS INDICATES THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE IMPLANT-PLAINTIFFS IN THESE CASES MAY NOT HAVE OPTED OUT. (h) All claims against Inamed Corp., and McGhan Medical Corp. are remanded to the indicated state courts, but may be pursued in state court only if those defendants default in payment of their obligations under the Revised Settlement Program or upon demonstration that the plaintiffs, if eligible, timely opted out of the original Global Settlemem or the Revised Settlement Program provided by those defendants. (i) All claims against other defendants not described in paragraph~ l(a) through l(h) above are remanded to the indicated state courts. (j) Further proceedings in state courts will be governed, in general and to the extent applicable, by the orders previously entered in MDL 926 and Master File No. CV 92-P-10000-S. (1) To the extent not inconsistent with state law, the provisions of Order No. 30, Order No. 30F, and Order No. 3(33 will apply to such further proceedings, except that paragraph 8 of that Order No. 30 and Order No. 13, imposing an assessment on recoveries for "common benefit" services and expenses, will not apply to recoveries by plaintiffs who exercised their initial right to opt out of the Lindsey class and whose state-court case was removed to federal court solely under the "related to bankruptcy" jurisdiction. (2) The deposition testimony of the members of the National Science Panel, appointed under Orders No 31 and 31D, will, when taken, be admissible and usable in the state courts to the same extent as if taken before remand of the case to the state court. 2 (3) The temporary, i~junction against certain settlement discussions, previously entered by this court, was vacated effective September 1, 1997. (4) Plaintiffs have previously been ordered to respond to questionnaires approved by this court. Remand courts should not permit plaintiffs to proceed further with the prosecution of claims until they have provided, upon request, defendants with responses to such questionnaires (or with the substantial equivalent through state-authorized discovery). (5) This court has previously transmitted to most of the state courts to which cases are being remanded a copy of Order No. 30 and the various orders listed in Appendix A to Order No. 30 with which the state courts should be made aware. The parties in the remanded cases are directed to ascertain from the state courts whether such courts have previously received such orders and, if not, to contact the Clerk of this court to obtain, for transmittal to the state courts. a "package" of such orders. Later orders of general interest would include Order No. 31' (National Science Panel), Order No. 36 (on-going studies), Order No. 37 (partial summary judgment for Union Carbide), Order No. 38 (summary judgment for General Electric). These orders, including the stipulation regarding objections to documents and the appendices to that stipulation, can also be obtained through the Internet at www.fjjc.gov/BREIMLIT/md1926.htm. (6) This court's file for most of these cases will not include pleadings, motions, etc. that were filed in state court before removal or in the federal transferor court before transfer to this court. The parties in the remanded cases should make arrangements with the Clerk of the federal transferor cour~ for transmission of documents from those court's files that may be needed to complete the state court file. in each of the listed cases. This the /t~ ~ay of October, 1997. This order will be filed in Master File CV 92-P-10000-S .and will be filed (without the appendix) Chief Judge Serve: Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel Defendants' Liaison Counsel · CV95-14271 PAE 2:95-050H9 93-2t CO~M.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. A HELL CV95-14272 PAR 2:95-05090 95-033, COHM.PL.CT. PHILADHLPHiA CO. PA GRABO~SKi CV95-142T5 PAR 2:93-03100 95-1927 COMM.PL.cT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA SANDERS CV95-14274. PAE 2:95-05104 95-2843 COHM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHrA CO. PA CARTER CV95-14275 PAR 2:95-05106 93-0756 COHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. =PA KELLy CV95-14276. PAE 2:95~05107 94-0321 COMM.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA SHEPARD~LUGRiHE CV95-14277.~ PAH 2:95-05108 93-4175 COHM.PL~CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. CV93-14278 ~AE 2:95-05109 94-2421 CONM.PL.CT. PA CNAZAK CV95-14279. PAR 2:95-05111 93~4173 PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA HARRIDAN CV95-14281 PAR 2:95-05113 CONM.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA HOYDEN · COHM.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA KELLy CV95-14282, PAR 2:95-05114 94-1256 COHt4.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA ~ELLS CV95-14283' PAR 2:95-05117 93-2200 COt4M.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA DO. PA DURANTE CV95-14284 PAR 2:95-05118 94-1278 CONM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA MARKHAN CW5-14287 .PAR 2:95-05126 93-0735 COtflN.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA SANTy CV95-14288 ~AE 2:95-05128 95-3105 COHM.PL.DT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. CV95-14289~ PAR 2:95-05129 94-3033 COHM.PL.CT. PA GORIN ',CV95-14290. PAE 2:95-05131 92-539 PHILADELPHzA CO. PA GARRiSoN COI~4.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA MARCHESE CV95-14291. PAR 2:93-05132 94-0314 DOflN.PL.DT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA ROSEN CV95-74293- PAR 2:95-05135 94~0319 CONN.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA ROSENBERD CV95-14294 PAR 2:95-05136 92-3749 CONM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. CV95-14295 PAR 2:93-05138 93-3907 DOHM.PL.CT. PA CANPANELLi CV95-17992. PAE 2:93-04859 94-0864 PHILADELPHIA CD. PA MiLNEH CV95-17994. PAE 2:95-04916 94-2470 CD~NM'PL'CT' PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA MAGOVERN COMM.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA STRATTON-NARViTZ CV95-17996. PAR 2:95-05027 94-2981 CONN.PL.cT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. CV95-1799~. PAR 2:95-05101 94-0322 COHM.PL.CT. PA HERKO~iyZ DV~5-17998. PAR 2:95-05134 94-37'70 PHILADELPHIA CO. PA LEON CV95-18000 PAR 2:95-06122 92-0308 CONI4.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA GATT! COMM.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA ROSENTHAL CV95-18001 PAR 2:95-06125 95-0647 COflN.PL.CT. PHiLADELpHiA CO. PA DIAZ DV95-18003 PAR 2:95-06128 94-2995 CONN.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA BUKO~SKi C¥95-18004 PAR 2:95-06129 94-0672 CONM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. CV95-18005 PAR 2:95-06130 94-3935 DONM.PL.CT. PA TOLL CV95-1BO0~. PAE 2:93-06132 93~2112 PHILADELPHIA CO, PA CALVAVECcHiA CV95-18009 PAR 2:95-06137 93-3908 CQ~4M'PL'CT' PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA CHEMERYS CV95-18070. PAR 2=95-06138 92-14B1 COI4t4.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA ABELLA CQflN.PL.Cy. PHILADELPt~IA CO. PA GALLO CV95-18011. PAE 2:95-06139 94-1240 CONM.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. CV95-18012 PAR 2:95-06740 94-2427 COMM.PL.CT. PA STANGLER CV95-78013 PAR 2:95-06141 94-3584 PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA BERGNAN CV95-18014. PAR 2:95-06142 92-2613 C~q'PL'CT' PHILADELPHIA CO. PA ~EINSTEIN CV95-18015 PAR 2:95-06148 95-1350 C(~f/4.PL.CT, PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA MORRis CO~'PL'CT' PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA LEISHEAR CV~'18019 PAR 2:95-062E5 9~'2072 C~M.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA LAUGHLIN CV~5'18020' PAR 2:9~'05323 9~.~208 CO~M.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA HODGE CV95-18021. PAR 2:95~06345 94-2121 CONM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA BRATTY CV95-18267. PAR 2:95-06335 94-4210 C~4M.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. CV93-18268 PAR 2:95-06336 95-1886 D~fM.PL.CT. PA GOGOG CV95-18269. PAR 2:95-0655? 94-1202 PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA HENEDETTO CV95-18270. PAR 2:95-06338 94-3767 CC~q/4.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA ALESSIO CCR4M.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA ARBAKOV CV95-18271 PAR 2:95-06339 94-3220 CONM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA ARCURE CV95-18272 PAE 2:95-06340 94-1203 CONM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA ANGELILLi CV93-1827'5. PAR 2:95-06341 95-2845 COHM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA BARBERA CV95-?HE?4* PAR 2:95-06342 94-1200 COHM.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA HEARD CV95-18275 PAR 2:95-06344 94-3768 CC~M.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. CV95-18276. PAR 2:95-06347 94-3208 COHM.PL.CT. PA HORGER CV95-18277 PAR 2:95-06364 94-05]6 PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA BRADLEY CVgS-1827B PAR 2:93-06365 93-4176 COflM.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA COLE CC~IM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA CRISCi CV93-182~9 PAE 2:95-06366 94-4213 CONM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA DOVI~SMiTH CV95-18280- PAR 2:95-06367 94-1201 CO~4N.PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA DOUGHERTy CV95-18281- PAR 2:95-06368 94-1532 CON~.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. CV95-18282 PAR 2:93-06369 95-1164 COHM.PL.CT. PA F%ORE CV95-18283. PAR 2:95-06370 92-0135 PHiLADELpHiA CO. PA FELJCi CV95-18284 PAR 2:95-06371 92-5077 CC~4.PL.CT. PHILADELpHiA CO. PA FORD C(~N'PL'CT' PHILADELpHiA CO. PA ESTLOg cvgs-1828H* PAR 2:95-06372 95~2662 COHM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA DOYLE CV93-18291 PAE 2:95-06451 94-4207 COHM.PL,CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. CV95-18298- PAE 2:95-06461 95-3160 COHM.PL.CT. PA ILJAZ CV95-78299. PAE 2:95-06510 94-0321 PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA HARCOZZi CV95-18301. PAR 2:95-06512 95-1241 COH~'PL'CT' PHILADELPHIA CO. PA ~ORMILE CV93-19227. PAE 2:95-04814 94-1495 C~'PL'cT' PHILADELPHIA CO. PA TAYLOR CV95-19229 PAR 2:9H-04817 93-4277 Ci~v/i'PL'CT' PHILADELPHIA CO. PA POLONANO COHM.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA PRICE CV95-19251. PAR 2:95-04819 95-3461 COHM.PL.DT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA SCHLESSINGER CV95-19233 PAR 2:93-04H25 94-1531 COHM,PL.CT. PHiLADELPHiA CO. PA PETTy IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE SILICONE GEL BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL-926) · MASTER FILE NO. CV 92~P-10000-S SHARON MORCH VS. MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, ET AL. NO 95-P~ -S DEBRA ANN DOYLE VS. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL MOTION TO JOIN RESPONSE OF CERTAIN NONDEBTOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SEVERANCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, AND MOTION TO REMAND AND ABSTAIN FROM NONDEBTOR BREAST IMPLANT LITIGATION The nondebtor Defendant healthcare provider listed in Exhibit A hereto, join in the Motion filed on behalf of certain nondebtor healthcare providers, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporate by reference the Response and Memorandum of Law attached hereto. For the reasons stated therein, the nondebtor healthcare providers respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Severance, or Alternatively for Conditional Dismissal with Prejudice, and Motions to Remove and Abstain from Nondebtor Breast Implant Litigation. DATED: 3/18/97 Respectfully submitted, ME'I-I'E, EVANS & WOODSIDE Michael D. Pipa, Esq(~te Sup. Crt. I.D. #53624 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital UNITzD STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA - SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE: SILICONE-GEL BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 926) Master File No. CV-95-P-10000-S DISTRICT COURT COX-UPHOFF I~RNATIONAL, ET AL. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, ET A~. LYNN A. V. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, ET AL. MARY ANN B~T.~WIN V. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, ET AL. RESPONSE OF CE~TAINNONDEBTOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS TO PLA~I~TiFFS' MOTION FOR S~CE OR, IN T~b~ ALTEP.NATIVE, FOR CONDITIOKAL DISMISSAL W~TH PREJUDICE AND MOTION TO REMAND AND ABSTAIN FROM NONDEBTOR BREAST IMPZAI~T LITIGATION On February 7, 1997, certain plaintiffs filed four Motions for Severance or, in the Alternative, for Conditional Dismissal with Prejudice, and Motions for Remand and To Abstain from Nondebtor Breas~ Implant Litigation, with this Honorable Court relating to 338 cases. NO. 95-P-18009-S NO. 95-P- -S NO. 95-P-19390-S NO. 95-P-13613-S UNITED STATES NORT~F-~R~ DISTRICT OF ALABAMA - SOUTHERN DIVISION Certain nondebtor defendant healthcare providers (hereinafter, defendant healthcare providers), including but not limited to those defendant healthcare providers listed in Exhibit B, hereby respond to plaintiffs' motions for severance of Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation,. or, in the alternative, to dismiss with prejudice, and to abstain and remand those breast implant actions listed by plaintiff in its February 5, 1995 motions. Defendant healthcare providers oppose plaintiffs! motions for the reasons set forth below. MOVIN~ PARTIES 1-6. Denied. Responding defendants are withouu knowledge as to the specifics involved in each and every applicable case. For instance, the responding defendants are without knowledge of the venue of original filing, the claims and counts, the named plaintiffs' reasons for naming Dow Coring Corporation or Dow Corning Wright Corp, in each and every of the case referred to in plaintiff's Exhibit "A". It is only admitted on information and belief that Dow Co.rning Corporation or Dow Corning Wright Corporation, in most of plaintiffs' cases, were either the manufacturer of plaintiffs' breast implants or a component supplier for the manufacturer of plaintiffs' implants. · 7. It is admitted that Dow Corning filed a Chapter 11 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 8. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that many state revised global settlement. 18-19. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that, at present, the Pennsylvania state court litigation is currently stayed pursuant to an order of the Coordinating Court. 20. Denied. The plaintiffs' assertions regarding the intentions of the Cocrdinating Court are denied. 21. It is admitted'that the removal of all claims and cross-claims against the Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation was proper. 22. Denied. Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation are indispensable parties to the causes of action against the nondebtor defendants because the plaintiffs have alleged joint and several liability against the defendants. Also, the defendant healthcare providers have asserted crossclaims against Dow Corning Corporation, a~d the defendant healthcare providers have preserved their rights against Dow Corning Corporation in the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. 23-26. Denied. The plaintiffs have asserted claims against the defendant healthcare providers, based upon the implantation of breast implants or breast implant materials manufactured by Dow Corning. The claims against the defendant healthcare providers are related to the claims against Dow Corning Corporation because plaintiffs allege that the breast implants which were inserted by the defendant healthcare providers are defective and cause injury. The claims and cross- claims against the debtor are, therefore, related to the 4 bankruptcy case because the defendant healthcare providers' c~ossclaims must be accounted for in the bankruptcy proceedings. Further, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals clearly held that the federal court has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' tort claims against the nondebtor defendants. In re D6w Corning Corporation, 86 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1996). The removal of the entire cause of action was appropriate ~nd in accordance with the bankruptcy r~les and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 27. Denied. A stay is currently in effec~ in the Pennsylvania state court litigation. 28-30. It is admitted that the Honorable Denise Page Hood entered a memorandum opinion and order on September 12, 1995 regarding the defendants' motions to transfer. That order and opinion has been reversed by the Sixth Circuit. In re Dow Cornin~ Corporation, 86 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1996). Specifically, Judge Hood's ruling that the court has no "related to" jurisdiction has been explicitly reversed. It is also admi%ted that Judge ~ood entered a memorandum opinion and order regarding the defendants' motion to transfer on July 30, 1996. Tha~ order and opinion are currently on appeal before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 31-32. It is admitted only that this Court has issued ozdars No. 26 and No. 27 which speak for themselves. REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEVER 33. Denied. It is specifically denied.that Dow Corning and Dow Corning Wright should be severed from the above identified 5 cases. To sever Dow Corning and Dow Corning Wright a'~ ~hi's juncture, with defendant healthcare providers having outstanding claims against Dow Corning, would be the defendant healthcare providers. outstanding issues as to Dow Corning, irreparably prejudicial to Severance would leave making a complete. reorganization impossible and resolution of defendant health care provider claims against the debtor impossible. This Court has already acknowledged the impact of outstanding crossclaims by requiring that there be no such claims against Dow Corning before remand will be considered. (See State Remand Order No. 1). Further, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that these contribution claims against Dow Corning Corporation are significant enough to warrant conferring "related to" jurisdiction to the district court over nondebtor defendants. In re Dow Cornin= Corporation, 86 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 1996). 34-37. Denied. It is denied that plaintiffs have stated valid reasons to sever Dow Corning Corporation or Dow Corning Wright Corporation from these cases. It~ is further denied that plaintiffs have stated or set forth "just cause" to remand the Pennsylvania breast implant cases back to state court at this point. It is further denied that the plaintiffs' motions are in compliance with Judge Hood's orders, as the September !995 order has been reversed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, while the July 30, 1996 order is currently on appeal before the Sixth Circuit Cour~ of Appeals. 6 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' ALTERRATIVE MOTIONS' FOR CONDITION DISMISSAL WIT~ PREo~bICE 38-42. Denied. It is denied thau Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation can be dismissed from the instant actions because of substanuive crossclaims brought by defendant healthcare providers are currently pending agains~ Dow Corning. Furthermore, this court has previously stated in State Remand Order No. I that claims against Dow Corning must be dismissed and that there must not be any pending crossclaims before cases may be remanded to state court. Plaintiffs request that Dow Corning be dismissed "with prejudice" so that the court can remand the actions. Plaintiffs are in substance, however, actually asking for a dismissal "without prejudice" because they request that the dismissal be without prejudice to the rights of plaintiffs to file proofs of claims or otherwise assert claims against Dow Corning Corporation in the context of the bankruptcy case. Plaintiffs further request that the dismissal be "without prejudice" to the rights of plaintiffs to assert claims against Dow Corning Corporation in any and all appropriate forums. These requested stipulations do not amount .to a dismissal "with prejudice." In reality, they fit the definition for dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiffs clearly have not me~ this Court's requirements for remand. They merely attempt tO reword their request as though they are requesting a complete dismissal of Dow Corning. In reality, the plaintiffs want to reserve all rights to pursue claims against Dow Corning, clearly not meeting the standard for 7 da~' mnda. a'.. hea~th~a~e e UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORT}LERIq DISTRICT OF ALABAMA - SOUT~EP-N DIVISION IN RE: SILICONE-GEL BREAST ) IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) LITIGATION (MDL 926) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT C6URT Mas=er File NO. CV-95-P-10000-S NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA - SOUTHEP~N DIVISION MARY ANN ABELLA COX-UPHOFF INTERNATIONAL, ET AL. DOW COR~ING CORPORATION, ET AL. LYNN A. ~T.DERFER V. DOW COP~NING CORPORATION, ET AL. NO. 95-P-18009-S NO. 95~P- -S NO. 95-P-19390~S NO. 95-P-13613-S MARY ANN Bb?.nWIN V. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OF LA36 IN SD~PORT OF T~ P~ESPONSE OF DEFENDA~TH~%LTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PLAINTIFPS' MOTIONS TO SE~rER OR, FOR CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE I. INTRODUCTION On February 7, 1997, certain plaintiffs filed four Motions for Severance or, in the Alternative, for Conditional Dismissal with Prejudice, and Motions for Remand and Abstain from Nondebtor Breast Implant Litigation, with this Honorable Court relating to 338 cases. Certain nondebtor defendant healthcare providers (hereinafter, defendant healthcare providers), including but not limited to those listed in Exhibit B, hereby respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Severance of Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corl~oration, or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss with PrejUdice, and to Abstain and Remand those breast implant actions listed 'by plaintiff in its February 7, 1997 motion. Defendant healthcare providers oppose plaintiff's motions for the reasons set forth below. II. AR~ u~5~T A. P~%XNTIFFS' CLAIMS AGAINST ~u~ NONDERTORS SHOULD NOT BE SE~ BECAUSE T-~'-~R REMOVAL TO FEDEP~%L COURT WAS PROPER ARD $~v~ANCE WOULD IR~EPER~tBLY PI~E~uuICE DEPENDANT Plaintiffs' motions to sever or, alternatively, to conditionally dismiss with prejudice, Dow Corning Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "debtor") from the above- captioned actions is premised primarily on plaintiffs' faulty assertion that the removal of these breast implant cases to the federal court was somehow improper. Specifically, plaintiffs erroneously assert that the federal district cour~ lacked subject matter jurisdiction over these cases and, hence, lacked the authority to grant their removal. In so doing, the plaintiffs rely heavily on the September 12, 1995 Memorandum Opinion and Order of Judge Hood, where Judge Denise Page Hood held that the federal cour~ did not have "related to" jurisdiction over the claims against nondeb=or 2 defendants. Such reliance, however, ignores the well-reasoned opinion of the Sixth Court of Appeals in In re Dow Cor~in~ Cormo=ation, 86 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1996), in which the court expressly reversed Judge Hood and held that the federal court did indeed have "related to" jurisdiction over those claims. In light of that opinion, the plaintiffs' assertions that the debtor must be severed ~nd cases remanded to the appropriate state courts of common pleas must be rejected. 1. Defendant Health Care Providers Have Valid Contribution Claims Pendin~ A~ainst the Debtor. Throughout their motion, the plaintiffs contend that federal court jurisdiction does not exist over the plaintiffs' tort claims against the nondebtor defendants, and, therefore, those claims must be severed from the claims against Dow Corning. In support of that assertion, the plaintiffs incorrectly and inexplicably allege that defendant healthcare providers do not have legally valid contribution claims against the debtor, and even if they did, those contribution claims would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction to the federal courts. In the course of responding ~o the numerous causes of action i~tituted against them by plaintiffs, the defendant healthcare providers have asserted crossclaims against the debtor for contribution and/or indemnification. The Pe~-nsylvania Coordinating Court for Silicone Implant Litigation (hereinafter the "Coordinating 'Court") issued a Case Management Order providing that "crossclaims against other defendants are deemed to be filed." In re Silicone Implant Litic., Case Management 3 Order No. 8 au II(6), attached as Exhibit "A". Clearly, the plaintiffs' allegation that defendant healthcare providers do not have contribution claims against the debtor is false and does not support plaintiffs' motions to sever and remand. Further, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has already determined that such contribution claims against the debtor are sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the tort claims of the plaintiffs against the nondebtor defendants. Specifically, the court held that these claims for contribution could affect the size of the debtor's estate, the length of the bankruptcy period, and the ability of the debtor to achieve a successful reorganization. In re Dow Cornin=, 86 F.3d at 494. Moreover, it is the plaintiffs who have alleged theories of joint and several liability against all defendants in their breast implant complaints. The Sixth Circuit found that it was significant to the finding of "related to" jurisdiction that the plaintiffs have asserted claims of joint and several liability against all defendants: "The principles regarding the existence of 'related to'. jurisdiction apply with particular force where, as here, plaintiffs are claiming that a debtor and nondebtor defendants acted in concer=." Id. at 492. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue.that Section 502(e) of the Bankruptcy Code may operate to disallow defendant healthcare p~ovider cross-claims against the debtor. As a result, the plaintiffs contend, federal court jurisdiction is lost and plaintiffs' ~ort claims against the defendant healthcare providers should be severed. The time for consideration of claims in the bankruptcy forum has not yet arisen. No allowance or disallowance of claims has yet taken place. As a result, the defendant healthcare providers are not yet aware of the status of their claims. Should disallowance occur, other options are available under the Bankrupcty Code, as well as disposition of claims through any reorganization plan..Therefore, the plaintiffs' argument is not persuasive, and lends no support to their motions to sever. Therefore, the plaintiffs assertions that the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' tort claims against the defendant healthcare providers because defendant healthcare providers do not have valid crossclaims for contribution against the debtor clearly do not support severance and remand at this time, and such motions should be denied. 2. Removal By Nondebtor Defendants Was Proper Under The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. a) Removal is Supported by Section 1452. Once it is established that a district court has "related to"'jurisdiction over a tort claim, pursuant to section 1334(b), removal of that claim to the District Court is expressly permitted by section 1452. Section 1452 provides that: "[a] party may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action other than a proceeding before the United States Tax Court or a civil action by a governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit's police or regulatory power, to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action 5 under §1334 of this title." 28 U.S.C. §1452(a) (1996). Moreover, the power of the District Court, sitting in bankruptcy, to fix the venue for the trial of such claims.is clearly provided in section 157(b) (5) states: 157 (b) (5) . Section "The District Cour= shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending." 28 U.S.C. §157(b) (5) (1996}. As the Sixth Circuit concluded in In re Dow Corni~a CORD., "Section 157(b) (5) should be read to allow a district court to fix venue for cases pending against nondebtor defendants which are "related to" a debtor's bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to section 1334(b). This approach will fur=her the prompt, fair, and complete resolution of all claims "related to" bankruptcy proceedings, and harmonize §1334(b)'s broad jurisdictional grant with the oft-stated goal of centralizing the administration of a bankruptcy estate." 86 ~.3d at 497. Thus, the removal to federal court of plaintiffs' tort claims against the nondebtor defendants was entirely appropriate, and the plaintiffs' assertions that severance and remand are required due to improp~r removal are 'baseless and must be rejected. b) The Nondebtor Manufacturers' Purposes for Removal '-Were Proper. Plaintiffs' repeated attacks on the defendant manufacturers' purpose for seeking removal of these cases to the federal court 6 are unwarranted. Plaintiffs would have this Court believe chat the debtor and the defendant healthcare providers have engaged in some grand conspiracy designed to deny the plaintiffs their rightful day in court. These assertions are patently false. The removal of the cases by various manufacturer co-defendants was in accordance with the rules and there was nothing inappropriate about the process. While it is true ~hat removal of these claims to the district court effectively stays plaintiffs' tort claims against the nondebtor defendants, that is merely incidental to the removal which was appropriate. The manufacturer defendants reasoned that consolidation of all claims "related to" Debtors' bankruptcy proceeding into a single federal forum would enable the district court to more easily determine the validity and fair value of all plaintiffs' claims. ~, 788 F.2d 994, 1013 (4th Cir. manufacturer defendants, would, expense of litigating countless See A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin 1986). This, as argued by the in turn, spare all parties the trials as well as greatly increase the prospect of the Debtors succeeding in their reorganization plan. I~, Further, if the court were to grant the manufacturers' request, the removal of all "opt-out" claims to a single federal forum until resolution of, for example, defendant healthcare provider cross-claims for contribution pending again~.t Dow Corning and the deliberations of the National Science Panel, may diminish potential conflicts between state and federal courts and reduce repetition and costs to the debtor's 7 estate. Therefore, nondehtor defendants in this case were for improper purposes, their argument in =hat regard does not support severance and remand. c) Plaintiffs Offer No Proof of Technical De~i¢iencies in Removal Procedure. The plain=ills .also con=end that procedural deficiencies in the debtor's removal process justify both severance and remand. Plaintiffs' contention that the debtor's notice of removal was technically deficient provides no weight to their mo=ion. Plaintiffs' vague assertions of these alleged deficiencies provide little clue as to what possible errors were made by the removing parties or how plaintiffs were prejudiced therefrom. For instance, Plaintiffs complain that copies of the no=ice were not "timely provided," but they fail to allege when they, in fac=, received these copies. Plaintiffs also state that the no=ice must be filed with the bankrupucy clerk, bu= they fail to allege that the debtor actually violated this rule. Without acEual proof of procedural deficiency, the plaintiffs' argument that removal was technically deficient must fail. Clearly, the plaintiffs have not alleged any technical deficiencies with sufficient specificity to j~stify severance and remand. Therefore, this Cour~ should deny plaintiffs' motions to sever the debtors from the above-captioned ac=ions and to remand these ac=ions to the state courts where they were first filed. the plaintiffs cannot argue that removal by the and 8 B. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AGAI~ST Tm NONDEBTOR DEFENDA~T~ SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COD~T BECAUSE P. EMOVAL WAS PROPER AND REMAND IS PREMA'ru~E AT THIS TIM~. This Cour~ has the power to remand claims or causes of action pursuant to Section 1452(b). However, based upon the foregoing analysis and the Sixth Circuit's opinion in In re Dow Cornin= Cor~., it is clear that the federal court has jurisdiction over'these claims. It would be fair for all parties involved if the defendant healthcare providers' crossclaims, in addition to all of plaintiffs' tort claims, remained consolidated with the debtor'~ bankruptcy case at this time. 1. Sufficient Considerations Exist to Justify Denial of Plaintiffs' Motions to Remand. The plaintiffs would like this court to believe that there is no justification for continued delay in remanding cases to state court. Such an argument ignores the important issues outstanding in both the Bankruptcy Court and the MDL court. The continued consolidation of nondebtor actions may reduce the potential conflicts between various state and federal courts. For instance, the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon has recently granted Defendants' Motions in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony. Judge Jones has ruled, however, that his order will not take effect until the National Science Panel appointed by this Court has reached its conclusions, in order to prevent duplicative rulings. Other similar situations may arise again if remand is permitted here, creating needless duplication of effort and waste of judicial resources. 9 Postponing remand at this time may also provide opportunity for resolution of the defendant healthcare providers' cross-claims for contribution against the debtor. In its proposed reorganization plan, Dow Corning requests the court to grant one causation trial to determine if ~ilicone gelbreast implants cause disease in women. Alternatively, the Tort Claimants have requested that a number of cause=ion trials be held throughout the country. Determination of this issue may make trial at the state court level less complicated and reduce the litigation burdens for all parties involved, depending upon the eventual outcome of such proceedings. Further, Debtor's reorganization plan and the proposed joint plan of the Tort Claimants' and Unsecured Creditors' Committees provide for different means of liquidating claims. In fact, the process of determining allowed or disallowed claims has not yet even begun. Permitting continued consolidation at this time, then, might allow these issues to be resolved and decrease burdens on state courts. Moreover, severance and remand at this time may impede on the ability of defendant healthcare providers to recover contribution claims in bankruptcy court or on the state level. For instance, there will be outs=ending questions as to whether nondebtor defendants can have their proportionate share of liability reduced in a state court trial, or if evidence of the amount of a~y settlement with the plaintiffs or a co-defendant will be permitted to offset a recover against the defendant 10 "healthcare providers. These are issues which can be resolved in a single forum. Furthermore, remanding these cases to their original state fozn/ms at this point might further complicate the procedural history of these claims. Certain nondebtor defendants, had filed motions with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan seeking to transfer these cases to that tribunal. The Honorable Denise Page Hood denied those motions because she believed the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. However, as discussed previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed Judge Hood's decision and held that the District Court did indeed have jurisdiction over these matters. See In r~ Dow Cornin= CORD., 86 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1996). On July 30, 1996, Judge Hood issued another Memorandum Opinion and Order, refusing to exercise jurisdiction over the cases on the basis of permissive and mandatory abstention. This ruling is currently before the Sixth Circuit Couru of Appeals. Remand at this time to state court would produce needless expenditures of time and Tesources and create chaos at the state level. Should the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals once again reverse Judge Hood, the cases would once again be transferred from state court to the Eastern District of Michigan. Clearly, sufficient considerations r~main to make any motions for severance and remand premature at this time. 11 2. The Current Cases Do Not Meet This Court~'s'Requ~remenZs For Remand. The plaintiffs argue that, since previous cases have been remanded to state court, the current cases should be remanded as well. This argument, however, ignores thqse requirements which the court has previously demanded be met prior to remand. An examination of the current cases in light of those requirements quickly exposes the weakness of the plaintiffs' assertions. The cases which the plaintiffs seek to have remanded are clearly distinguishable from those cases that this Court has remanded in the past. Each State Remand Order that this Court has issued was partly premised upon the fact that there were no crossclaims pending against the Debtors in any of the remanded cases. For example, in State Remand Order No. 1, this Court stated, · as there are no pending crossclaims against the Dow defendants in these cases, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against the Dow defendants will effectively eliminate the basis for federal court jurisdiction upon which removal was 'premised." In fact, this Court has previously ordered that the absence of any pending crossclaims against the Dow defenda~lts is a mandatory p~erequisite for plaintiffs seeking to remand cases to state court. Specifically, in State Remand Order No.1, this Court set for~:h the requirements for future motions of this kind: The court expects a large number of similar motions to be made in the future with respect to cases removed under 28 U,S.C. §1452(a) and the~ transferred to this court under 28 U.S.C. §1407. The following procedures should be followed in such case where the plaintiff(s) will seek remand based on a dismissal with prejudice of the Dow 12 defendants... (2) The motion should clearly... (b) indicate whether the Dlalntiff has opted-out o~ the settlement class or is a ~er of the settlement class, (c) indicate whethsr there ate any cross-claims Dentin= a=ainst any Dow defendant... Since each of the defendant healthcare providers in =he above- captioned actions have crossclaims deemed filed against the debtor and the opt-out status of many plaintiffs is still unclear, it would be inconsistent with this Court's prior rulings to grant plaintiffs' present motion to remand. Plaintiffs' rely on a recent United States District Court order in In re: Arlene Eisel, et al. v. Dow Corninc CorD., et a%., Civil Action 95-1247 (W.D. Pa. 1995} to support the contention that, since other federal courts may have granted motions to sever and have remanded cases to should be done in this case as well. The order by the district court in In re Eisel carries no weight as precedent. It clearly flies in the face of the letter and spirit of the MDL order issued September 29, 1995, and ignores the well-reasoned opinion of ~he Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Dow Corning Co~Doration, 81 F. 3d 635 (6th Cir. 1996). The MDL panel's transfer order issued September 29, 1995 transferred 98 cases involving motions to sever and other jurisdictional objections to this court. The panel explained that, since jurisdictional objections such as severance will appear in more than 3,000 breast implant cases, "it would be difficult to conceive of a more compelling occasion to apply 13 these longstanding principles of Panel jurisprudence." {See Panel Order, p.3~. The principles to which the MDL was referring are found in In re ~v~, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2nd Cir. 1990): The jurisdictional issue in question is easily capable of arising in hundreds or even thousands of cases in the district courts throughout the nation...Once transferred, the jurisdictional.objections can be heard and resolved by a single court and reviewed at the appellate level in due course. Consistency as well as economy is thus served. By implication, the Panel also suggested that cases not yet transferred to the Northern District of Alabama, with similar jurisdictional objections, should not be decided by the sitting district court judge, but should instead be prepared for transfer and consolidation with other related oases. The current oases do not meet the letter or spirit of previous court requirements for remand. The plaintiffs' reliance on the above grounds for severance and remand is misplaced, and their motions should be denied. C. T~IS COURT SHOUTED NOT A~STAINFROM~%~IN~ -r~u~A~OVEo CAPTIONED CLAIMS. The plaintiffs contend that the court should abstain from hearing any breast implant claims against nondebtor defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334(c) (1) and (c) (2). In light of the foregoing analysis, the plaintiffs' assertions are clearly without merit. Moreover, the issue of abstention is improperly addressed to =his court. This argument is more properly made before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is currently reviewing Judge Hood's July 30, 1996 memorandum opinion and order 14 regarding the abstention issue. The defendant healthcare providers, however, in light of plaintiffs' decision to pursue the abstention argument before this Court, are compelled to respond. 1. Mandatory Abstention. Title 28's provisions for mandatory abstention appear in §1334(c) (2). Section 1334(c) (2) provides that, "[u]pon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case u~der title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which action could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate jurisdiction." 2S U.S.C. §1334(c) (2) (1996). Thus, §1334(c)(2) m~u~dates that a district court abstain from hearing a claim if the court's only ground for jurisdiction is that the claim is "related to" a bankruptcy case and if a state court can "timely adjudicate" the case. However, §15~(b) (4) provides that "In]on~core proceedings under §15'7(b)(2) (B} of title 28, United States Code [liquidation of personal injury tor~ or wrongful death cases], shall not be subject to the mandatory abstention provisions of §1334 (c) (2)." 28 U.S.C. §157 (b) (4) (1996). Thus, "personal injury cases are not subject re'this mandatory abstention provision." In re White Motor Credit, 761 F.2d 270, 272 {6th Cir. 1985). Therefore, because plaintiffs' claims against =he nondebtors are personal 15 injury cases, this Court is not required to abstain f~om ~earing them. 2. Permissive Abstention. Permissive abstention in the above-captioned cases would be improper as well. Section 1334 {c) (1) pe~its a district court to abstain from hearing a proceeding "related to" a bankruptcy case if doing so wo~ld be "in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law., 28 U.S.C. §1334 (c) (1) (1996). However, a District Court should be reluctant to opt in favor of abstention. As the Second Circuit concluded in In re Pan Am. CORD., "Congress has indicated that courts should not be too quick to abstain from exercising their transfer powers under §28 U.S.C. §157 (b) (5). Transfer should be the rule, abstention the exception." 950 F.2d 839, 845 (2d Cir. 1991). Thus, the provisions cf Section 157 (b) (5), providing that personal injury tort claims "shall be tried in the District Cour~ in which the banJ~ruptcy case is pending or in the Distric~ in which the claim arose," should receive paramount consideration in a court's abstention analysis. According to the Fourth Circuit, a court should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of hearing a case before making its decision about whether or not to abstain. A.H. Robins Co.,Inc., 788 F.2d at 1016. Applying this test instantly, the advantages to be gleaned from the district court hearing plaintiffs' claims against the nondebtors clearly outweigh any possible disadvantages. The silicone implant litigation is made complex not o~ly by sheer volume, but also by complicated, legal issues. These include not only state tort law issues, but also issues of bankruptcy, contribution and indemnity. Resolving these issues all at once may avoid innumerable problems that may arise if they are adjudicated piecemeal. Concerns over conflicting decisions in a various stat~ and federal courts may be alleviated. Judicial resources at both the state and federal level may be preserved. Moreover, litigating all claims in a central federal forum might increase the chances of the debtor achieving a successful reorganization. This would benefit all parties. The debtor may increase the chances of continuing as a going concern. This, in turn, would enhance its ability to fully restitute any and all claims and crossclaims against the Debtor. These are not minor considerations. To the contrary, a paramount desire of Congress in enacting bankruptcy procedures was "to eliminate the confusion, delay and inefficiencies associated with the [previous] Act's limited jurisdictional scheme." In re Pan Am. CorD., 990 F.2d at 845. In contrast, the potential disadvantages cited by plaintiffs are few and tenuous an best. capable of interpreting state adjudicating plaintiffs' tort concerns that plaintiffs cite The district cour~_ is more than law for the purposes of claims. In addition, the docket apply equally to the state court system. As stated above, the best way to conserve judicial resources would be to consolidate all claims into a single 17 federal tribunal at this time, leaving open the possibility of remand in the future, once issues such as defendant healthcare providers' cross-claims against the debtor are resolved. Plaintiffs' concerns over forum shopping are, likewise, unavailing. The reduction of litigation costs and duplication of activity, as well as the desire to protect their crossclaims, serve as ample justification for the nondebtors to seek removal of these cases t~ the district court. Finally, it is unlikely that plaintiffs' alleged right to a jury trial would be endangered. Section 1411 provides, in relevant part, that "this chapter and Title 11 do not affect any right to trial by jury that an individual has under applicable nonbankruptcy law with regard to a personal injury or wrongful death tort claim." The above analysis clearly indicates substantial support for the position that abstention should not apply i~ this matter. As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is still considering this issue, and it is clear meritorious arguments exist for reversal, it would be premature for this Court to grant plaintiffs' motions to sever and remand on this basis. D.. DENYIN~ PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS WILL CONSERVE JUDICIAL RESOURCES AND AVOID PRE~UbICE. Plaintiffs' final contention is that severing their claims against the Debtors from their claims against the nondebtors is necessary to prevent waste of Judicial resources, avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs and further the public interest. This argument ignores the crossclaims for contribution of defendant healthcare providers deemed files in state court and currently pending against the debtor in the bankruptcy court. Judicial resources, at this time, might best be conserved if all pending claims and crossclaims remain consolidated in a centralized forum so that they can be addressed at one time. This would cut down on needless duplication of litigation. Perhaps more importantly, centralizing this litigation would prevent the possibility that conflicting orders will be issued by various state and federal courts. As the Dow Corning reorganization is still in its early stages, it is not known if a common causation trial will be held concerning whether silicone breast implant cause disease, if several such trials will be held, or if no common causation trial will be held at all. The National Science Panel has yet to complete its review of the literature concerning silicone breast implants and their relation to disease, causing Judge Jones' order precluding plaintiffs' expert testimony to be put on hold. The issue of abstention is still pending in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Crossclaims for contribution have not yet been resolved in the bankruptcy forum. Therefore, it would be inefficient and inequitable to remand these cases at this time. In contrast, granting plaintiffs' motions at this point would simply increase the number of tribunals already involved in this dispute, with a corresponding increase in each party's litigation costs. Permitting the defendant healthcare providers to address their crossclaims at the same time that plaintiffs' claims are being heard would obviate the'need for the nondebtors 19 "waste" judicial resources in doing so later. Plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their claims against all defendants after the bankruptcy court has approved the Debtors' reorganization plan and lifted the stay on litigation. While the time frame for this to happen may not be as short as the plaintiffs may like, it is nevertheless the same time frame for all parties, including the defendant healthcare providers. As there has not yet been any proof of the defendant healthcare providers' liability, the plaintiffs are entitled to no special treatment in the pursuit of their claims, notwithstanding any injuries from which they might allegedly suffer. All these interests may be more easily accommodated in this mattar if all claims and crossclaims are resolved together. Conservation of judicial resources and the avoidance of prejudice to defendant healthcare providers clearly justify denial of plaintiffs' motion to sever and remand. III. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant healthcare providers respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiffs' Motions for Severance, or Alternatively for Conditional Dismissal with Prejudice, and Motions to Remand and Abstain from Nondebtor Breast .Implant Litigation. 2O IN THE COURT OF. COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA THE COORDINATING COURT FOR SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION IN RE: SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION ] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 8 ] SHORT FORM COMPLAINT/PLEADINGS/ ] SERVICE/EXISTING LA~ SUITS/ JURISDICTION/VENUE--FORUM NON ] CONVENIENS/SUBSEQUENT ] LEGAL RULINGS AND NOW, on this ORDERED as follows: ORDER OF COURT /Z day of November, 1993, I. NEW LA~SUITS it is hereby (1) Lawsuits seeking damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained in the use of silicone breast implants may be commenced only by filing the Short Form Complaint that is attached to this Order as Exhibit 1 or by filing a praecipe for a writ of su~ons. (2) If a lawsuit is commenced by filing a praecipe for a writ of summons, the Short Form Complaint must be filed within ninety days after the writ is filed unless there is (i} a court order entered within the ninety-day period which extends the time for filing the complaint or (ii) a written agreement with each of the defendants which extends the time for filing the complaint. If a complaint is not timely filed, the case is automatically dismissed for failure to proceed. (b) All averments of fact in a plaintiff's complaint relating to the identity of the person by whom a material act was committed, the agency or employment of such person and the owner- ship, possession, or control of the property or instrumentality involved are deemed admitted unless denied specifically. (c) A defendant who does not wish to raise preliminary objections or any affirmative defenses that must be pleaded and who admits the averments within a complaint described in subparagraph (4) (b) shall file only a "General Denial." (5) The affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations are deemed to be pleaded. Consequently, they shall not be included in the responsive pleading. (6) Cross claims against other defendants are deemed to be filed. Consequently, they shall not be raised in the responsive pleading. (7) Plaintiffs are not required to file a pleading to a responsive pleading. All factual allegations in the responsive pleading are deemed denied. (8) Defend. ants may not file any counterclaims. III. JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), until further ordex of court, no defendant is permitted to join a person who is not already a party to the action as an additional defendant. The foregoing Reponse to Plaintiffs' Motions fo~ Severance or, in the Alternative, for Conditional Dismissal with Prejudice, and Motions to Remand and Abstain from Nondebtor Breast Implant Litigation and accompanying memorandum of law is filed on behalf of certain Pennsylvania defendant healthcare providers, including but not limited to the following: Albert Einstein Medical Center John Angelo, M.D. Scott P. Bartlett, M.D. Alejandro Beddings, M.D. Howard S. Caplan, M.D. Lester Cramer, M.D. Francine Cedrone, M.D. Richard W. Dabb, M.D. Robert M. Davis, M.D. Nino DeProphetis, M.D. Doylestown Hospital Evangelical Hospital Harry Fallick, Marcia Fitzpatrick,M.D. Thomas Frazier, M.D. Zaki S. Ftaiha, M.D. Bruce Genter, M.D. R/chard M. Goldfarb, M.D. ~randview Hospital Ralph Hamilton, M.D. Marvin Hunter, M.D. John Rhea Barton, Surgical Associates Robert Kevitch, M.D. John LaManna, M.D. Lancaster Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Lehigh Valley Hospital Sherman Leis, M.D. Ted E. Lockwood, M.D. Lower Bucks Hospital Barbara Lundy, M.D. Medical College Hospital Elkins Park Division Amir Mitra, M.D. Manny Moser, M.D. Hunter Neal, M.D. P.C.Curtis A. Ngau, M.D. Walter Okunski, M.D. Dale Penrod, M.D. Plastic Surgery Center Prosperi-Moser Plastic Surgery Center Reading Hospital & Medical Center Saint Agnes Medical Center Saint Mary Hospital Henry Scheuermann, M.D. David W. Shenton, Jr., M.D. Margaret S. Skiles, M.D. John A. Altobelli, M.D. Allen Bar, M.D. Lenora R. Barot, M.D. Thomas Brobyn, M.D. Clinical Surgical Assocs. Jose Castillo, M.D. James L. Columbo, M.D. J. Wallace Davis, M.D. Thomas S. Davis, M.D. Richard L. Dolsky, M.D. Ted S. Eisenberg, D.O. Michael Fakhraee, M.D. Leo D. Farrell, M.D. James W. Fox, IV, M.D. Clarence Freed, M.D. Geisinger Medical Center Williams P. Gibbons,M.D. Edward Gotfried, D.O. HahnemannUniversity Hospital Hazel Holst, M.D. Frederick Janczllk, M.D. Theodore Katz, M.D. Cynthia A. Kavouksorian, M.D. Joseph F. Kusiak, M.D. LaManna-Dooley Plastic Surgery Donato LaRossa, M.D. David C. Leber, M.D. Herndon Lehr, M.D. (Estate of) Richard Levin, David Low, M.D. Milton Lu, M.D. Richard Manstein, M.D. David C. Matthews, M.D. Mercy Hospital John H. Moore, Jr., M.D. William Mullis, M.D. Julius Newman, M.D., R. Barrett Noone, M.D. Pennsylvania Hospital Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine Sergio Proserpi, M.D. Peter Randall, M.D. Maja Reutschi, M.D. Riddle Memorial Hospital Saint Joseph Hospital John C. Schantz, M.D. Murray Seitchik, M.D. Barry F. Shesol, M.D. James W. Slavin, M.D. Raymond Smith, M.D. Taylor Hospital Trustees of the Hospital the University of Pennsylvania of Rouslyn Souser, 'M.D. Temple University Hospital Linton A. Whi=aker, M.D. Charles L. Wolferth, M.D. James Yates, M.D. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOR~"H~R~! DISTRICT OF ALABAMA - SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE: SILIC0~-GEL BRF-J%ST ) IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) Masuer File No. LITIGATION (MDL 926) ) CV-95-P-10000-S ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTheRN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA - SOUTHERN DIVISION MARY ANN ABET.T.A V. COX-UPHOFF INTERNATIONAL, KAREN C. ALBRECHT V. DOW CORNING CORPO~ATION, LYITNA. AT.nERFER V. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, MARY ANN BA?.nWIN V. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, ET AL. NO. 95-P-18009-S NO. 95-P- -S ET AL. NO. 95-P-19390-S ET AL. NO. 95-P-13613-S ET AL. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dorothy Duffy, Esquire, do hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing Response of Certain Health Care Providers to the Motions of Plaintiffs' for Severance or, in the Alternative, for Conditional Dismissal with Prejudice and Motions to Remand and Abstain from Nondebtor Breasu Implant Litigation and Memorandum in Support Thereof, ~o be se~-ved this day by United Sta~es .firs~ class mail, postage prepaid: PLAINTIFFS' CO-LIAISON COUNSEL FRANCIS H. HA~LE, JR., ESQUIRE Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton 601 The Massey Building 290 Twenty-First Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 J. MICHAEL REDIKER, ESQUIRE Ritchie & Rediker, P.C. 312 North Twenty-Third Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3878 DEFENDANTS' LIAISON COUNSEL FRANK C. WOODSIDE, III, ESQUIRE Dinsmore & Shohl 1900 Chemed Center 255 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 DEFENDANTS' STEERING COMMItteE DEBRA E. POLE, ESQUIRE Dickson, Carlson, Campillo Third Floor 120 Broadway Post Office Box 2122 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2122 Attorney for Defendant Baxter Healthcare/Heyer-Schulte ROBERT S. NIEMAI~, ESQUIP~E Lynch, Loofhourrow, Gilardi & Grummer Suite 400 50 Francisco Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Attorney for Defendant Bioplasty RICHARD EITTREIM, ESQUIRE McCarter & English 4 Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102-4096 Attorney for Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Surgitek 23 WILLIAM D. EGGERS, ESQUIRE Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle Clinton Square Pos~ Office Box 1051 Rochester, NY 14503 Attorney of Defendant Corning, Inc. HERBERT L. ZAROV, ESQUIRE Mayer, Brown & Platt 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603-3441 Attorney for Defendant Dow Chemical CAROLYN H. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE Williams & Connolly 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Attorney for Defendant General Electric L. RICHARD RAWLS, ESQUIRE Palmieri, Tyler, Weiner, Wilhelm & Waldron Suite 1300 2603 Main Street Irvine, CA 92714-6228 Attorney for Defendants McGhan Medical Corporation Inamed and CUI MELISSA J. FASSEWITT, ESQUIRE Nusil Technology 1055-B Cindy Lane Carpinteria, CA 93013 Attorney for Defendant McGhan Nusil WILLIAM B. GRIFFIN, ESQUIRE Brobeck, Phelger & Harrison One Market Plaza Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94015 Attorney for Defendant Mentor Corporation '21' CARLA. HENLEIN, ESQUIRE Brown, Todd & Heyburn 3200 Capital Holding Center Louisville, KY 40202-3363 Attorney for Defendants International Holdings, Inc./Scotfoam JO~l~ DAMES, ESQUIRE Kelley, Drye & Warren Suite 1400 303 West Madison Chicago, IL 60606 Attorney for Defendant Union Carbide Corporation/Chemicals JOSEPH M. PRICE, ESQUIRE Faegre & Benson 2200 Norwest Center 90 South seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Attorney for Defendant 3M PHILLIP A. BAKER, ESQUIRE Baker, Silberberg & Keener Suite 300 2850 Ocean Park Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90405-2936 Attorney for Defendants Petrarch Systems, Inc. and Huls America, Inc. DOUGLAS B. SCHOETTINGER, ESQUIP~E DOW Corning Corporation CO 1222 Midland, MI 48666-0995 Attorney for Defendants, Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation LOWELL S. FINE, ESQUIRE SUSAN M. LIEPPE, ESQUIRE Alembik, Fine & Callner, P.A. Fourth Floor - Marquis One 245 Peachtree Center Avenue Atlanta, GA 30303 Attorney for Defendant Koken Company, Ltd. S. GORDON ELKINS, ESQUIR~ Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young 2600 One Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 Surgitek, Attorney for Defendants Inc., Cabot Medical Corporation and Circon Corporation A. JOE PEDDY, ESQUIP-E Smith, Spires and Peddy 650 Financial Center 505 North Twentieth Street ~irmingham, A~ 35203-2862 Attorney for Defendant, Wilshire Technologies DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL SARAH W. AROSELL, ESQUIRE P~'~R J. CURRY, ESQUIRE Thomas, Thomas & Haler 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 DAVID BAHL, ESQUIRE McCormick, Reeder, Nichols, Bahl, Knecht & Person P.O. Box 577 835 West Fourth Street Williamsport, PA 17701 JOHN BASS, ESQUIRE Grogan, Graffam, McGinley & Lucchino Three Gateway Center, 22nd Fl. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 B. CRAIG BLACK, ESQUIRE McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 EVAN BLACK, ESQUIRE Post & Schell, P.C. 101 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 THOMAS J. BRADLEY, ESQUIRE McBreen, McBreen & Kopko Suite 900 1760 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 ROBERT M. BRITTON, ESQUIRE Post & Sche!l, P.C. 19th Floor 1800 JFK Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103-7480 ELLEN G. CASEY, ESQUIRE Office of Legal Affairs University of Pennsylvnaia Medical Center Seven Penn Tower 3400 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 JAMES D. COT.~N~%N, ESQUIRE Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll Fifty-First Floor 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 ANTHONY E. CREATO, ESQURIE Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe, Cramer & Jamieson 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7598 HOWARD M. CYR, III, ESQUIRE Harvey, Pennington, Hering & Renneisen, Ltd. Nineteenth Floor - Eleven Penn Centar 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 MARK F. DIGIOVANNI, ESQUIRE DAVID SUMNER, ESQUIRE Jacobson, Maymaid, Tuschman & Kalui 1787 Sentry Parkway'West Suite 450, Bldg. 16 Blue Bell, PA 19422 KATHY DIPILLIS, ESQUIRE Hourigan, Kluger, Spohrer & Quinn Sovereign Building 609 Hamilton Mall Allentown, PA 18101 RACHEL B. EISNER, ESQUIRE Dechert, Price & Rhoads 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower 1717 A~ch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 GRANT H. F?.FMING, ESQUIRE ALAN MEELY, ESQUIRE McQuaide Blasko Law Offices 811 University Drive State College, PA 16801 TIMOTHY FOLEY, ESQUIR~ Foley, Cogne~ti & Comurford 700 Scranton Electric Building 907 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18505-1666 ROBERT S. FORSTER, JR., ESQUIRE Schnader, Harrison, Segal ~ Lewis Suite 3600 1600 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4252 GILES J. GACA, ESQUIRE Gaca, Matis & Baum, P.C. 300 Four PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 ALAN S. GOLD, ESQUIRE Monaghan & Gold Manor Professional Building 7837 Old York Road Elkins Park, PA 19117 CY GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE EDWARD FRANCE, ESQUIRE C~ Goldberg & Associates Suite 1320 - The Atlantic Building 260 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 FREDERIC L. GOLDFEIN, ESQUIRE ~oldfein & Joseph The Packard Building Seventeenth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 JAMES GRIFFITH, ESQUIRE Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen Packard Building 15th & Chestnut Streets 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102-2678 P. BRENNAN HART, ESQUIRE Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin USX Tower 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 " Pittsburgh, PA 15219 WALTER S. JENKINS, ESQUIRE Sweeney, Sheehan & Spencer, P.C. Nineteenth Floor - 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Hollstein, E. MIC~2%EL KEATING, ESQUIRE Keating, Cattell, Johnson & Goldstein, P.C. Suite 1602 1608 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 NOREEN P. KEMETHER, ESQUIRE Galli, Reilly & Stellato Suite 2575 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 BEBE H. KIVITZ, ESQUIRE Hoyle, Morris & Kerr 4900 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-1397 VICTORIA KOMARNICKI, ESQUIRE Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg Sixteenth Floor - 1601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2316 GILDA L. KRAMER, ESQUIRE Suite 1100 1500 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 JANE KOREIN KUSHON, ESQUIRE Sand & Saidel, P.C. 113 South Twenty-first Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 JOHN J. LEONARD, ESQUIRE LISA A. SHELUGA, ESQUIRE Leonard, Tillery & Davison Eighteenth Floor 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102-2068 FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR., ESQUIRE Marshall & Farrell, P.C. 1323 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 King, EDWARD MCCARDLE, ESQUIRE McCardle, Herman, Freund & Olexa 110-112 North Sixth Street Post Office Box 449 Allentown, PA 18105 MICHAEL W. MCGUCKIN, ESQUIRE McGuckin & McCarthy 521 Plymouth Road - Suite 115 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 MICHAEL MCKERNAN, ESQUIRE McKernan & McCartin, P.C. Suite 300 502 West Office Center Drive Fort Washington, PA 19034 D. MADELAINE MILLER, ESQUIRE Obermeyer, Rebmann, Maxwell ~& Hippell 111 S. 15th Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 JEREMY MISHKIN, ESQUIRE Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads Twentieth Floor Three Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19102 DEAN MURTAGH, ESQUIRE CAT~IY LOURENCO, ESQUIRE German, Gallagher & Murtagh The Bellevue, Suite 500 200 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Marshall, LYNN NAHMANI, ESQUIRE Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin One Montgomery Plaza Suite 1002 Norristown, PA 19¢01 ~I~RYL M. NICOLSON, ESQUIRE Haase, Sullivan, Mallon, Cherner & Broadt 216 South Orange Street Media, PA 19063 BEATRICE O'DONNELL, ESQUIRE Duane, Morris & Hecksher One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396 NAOMI PLAKINS O'NEIL, ESQUIRE Suite 300 100 South Main Street Post Office Box 12S7 Doylestown, PA 18901 DEBORA/{ P. OLSZEWSKI, ESQUIRE Klym, Olszewski & Nedlik 1600 Grant Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 KATHLEEN M. QUARTO, ESQUIRE Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 DIANE QUINLIN, ESQUIRE Grogan, Graffam, McGinley & Lucchino Three Gateway Center, 22nd Fl. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 JOSEPH A. QUINN, ESQUIRE Hourigan, Kluger, Spohrer & Quinn Suite 700 Mellon Bank Center 8 West Market Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701-1867 VINCENT PATRICK REILLY, ESQUIRE Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 1800 Campus Boulevard Suite 250 Newtown Square, PA 19073 THOMAS REILLY, ESQUIRE Gallagher, Reilly & Lachat, 2000 Market Street Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 PoCo DAVID RICHMAN, ESQUIRE Pepper, Hamilton & Schee=z 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and ltrch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 FP. EDERIC RO?.T.~, ESQUIRE Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4717 AMALIA V. 'ROMANOWICZ, ESQUIRE Wright, Young & McGilvery 1400 Union Meeting Road Suite 220 Blue Bell, PA 19422 EUGENE F. SCANLON, ESQUIRE Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 400 Two PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 MADELINE SHERRY, ESQUIRE Hecker, Brown, Sherry & Johnson 1700 Two Logan Square 18th & A~ch S~ree~ Philadelphia, PA 19103 PHILLIP B. SILVERbLa_N, ESQUIRE Harris & Silverman Twenty-Fifth Floor 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 JOHN SKROCKI, ESQUIRE McWilliams & Mintzer' Eight Penn Center Plaza 20th Floor, 1628 JFK Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 JOHN J. SNYDER, ESQUIRE McDonald & Snyder Suite 526 Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19102 JO~ R. SPARKS, ESQUIRE Post & Schell, P.C. 237 Noruh Prince Street Lancaster, PA 17603 EDWIN L. STOCK, ESQUIRE Roland & Schlegal, P.C. 627 North Fourth Street P.O. Box 902 Reading, PA 19603 CRAIG A. STONE, ESQUIRE Metre, Evans & Woodside P.O. Box 729 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0729 JAMES C. STROUD, ESQUIRE Rawie & Henderson The Widener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 LINDA PORR SWEE~TEY, ESQUIRE German, Gallagher & Murtagh 40 East Grant Avenue Lancaster PA 17602 WILLIAM J. TAYLOR, ESQUIRE Taylor & Taylor Suite 811 Ten Penn center 1801 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 STEPHEN W. TROUT, ESQUIRE Murphy, Taylor, Trout & Chestak, P.C. Suite 1100 ~ 1616 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Marshall, Marshall, JOSEPH M. WALKER, ESQUIRE Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 20 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901-4318 AT.~.~NWARSHAW, ESQUIRE Duane, Morris & Hecksher 305 N. Front Street" P.O. Box 1003 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1003 JIM WILSON, ESQUIR~ Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & G6ggin 507 Linden Stree~ Scranton, PA 18503 C. JAMES ZESZu~K, ESQUIRE Thorpe, Reed &Armstrong One Riverfront Cen~er Pittsburgh, PA 15222 PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL JO~ P. KOPESKY, ESQUIRE Sheller, Ludwig & Badey Third Floor 1528 Walnut StreeU Philadelphia, PA 19102 DATED: DANIEL F. KYAN, II% ~ DOROTHY DUFFY O'BRIEN & RYAN Sui=e 300 Hickory Pointe Plymouth Mee=ing, PA (610) 834-8800 19462 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE SILICONE GEL BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL-926) · MASTER FILE NO. · CV 92-P-10000-S SHARON MORCH VS. MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, ET AL. NO 95-P- -S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 18th day of t~a~ch ,1997, I, MICHAEL D. PIPA, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I am serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, as follows: PLAINTIFFS' CO-LIAISON COUNSEL: Francis H. Hare, Jr., Esquire J· Michael Rediker, Esquire Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton Ritchie & Rediker, P.C. 601 The Massey Building 312 North Twenty-Third Street 290 Twenty-First Street North Birmingham, AL 35203-3878 Birmingham, AL 35203 DEFENDANTS' LIAISON COUNSEL: Frank C. Woodside, III, Esquire Dinsmore & Shol 1900 Chemed Center 255 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 DEFENDANTS' STEERING COMMITTEE: Debra E. Pole, Esquire Dickson, Carlson, Campillo Third Floor- 120 Broadway P.O. Box 2122 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2122 Attorney for Defendant Baxter Healthcare/Heyer-Schulte Richard Eittreim, Esquire McCarter & English 4 Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102-4096 Attorney for Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Surgitek Herbert L. Zarov, Esquire Mayer, Brown & Platt 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603-3441 Attorney for Defendant Dow Chemical L. Richard Rawls, Esquire Palmieri, Tyler, Weiner, Wilhelm & Waldron Suite 1300, 2603 Main Street Irvine, CA 92714-6228 Attorney for Defendant McGhan Medical Corp. Inamed and CUI Robert S. Nieman, Esquire Lynch, Looroourrow, Gilardi & Grummer Suite 400, 50 Francisco Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Attorney for Defendant Bioplasty William D. Eggers, Esquire Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle Clinton Square P.O. Box 1051 Rochester, NY 14503 Attorney for Defendant Corning, Inc. Carolyn H. Williams, Esquire Williams & Connolly 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Attorney for Defendant General Electric Melissa J. Fassewitt, Esquire Nusil Technology 1055-B Cindy Lane Carpinteria, CA 93013 Attorney for Defendant McGhan Nusil William B. Griffin, Esquire Brobeck, Phelger & Harrison One Market Plaza Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94015 Attorney for Defendant Mentor Corporation John Dames, Esquire Kelley, Drye & Warren Suite 1400, 303 West Madison Chicago, IL 60606 Attorney for Defendant Union Carbide Corp./Chemicals Phillip A. Baker, Esquire Baker, Silberberg & Keener Suite 300, 2850 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405-2936 Attorney for Defendant Petrarch Systems, Inc. and Huls American, Inc. Lowell S. Fine, Esquire Susan M. Lieppe, Esquire Alembik, Fine & Callner, P.A. Fourth Floor - Marquis One 245 Peachtree Center Avenue Atlanta, GA 30303 Attorney for Defendant Koken Company, Ltd. A. Joe Peddy, Esquire Smith, Spires and Peddy 650 Financial Center 505 North Twentieth Street Birmingham, AL 35203-2862 Attorney for Defendant Wilshire Technologies Carl A. Henlein, Esquire Brown, Todd & Heyburn 3200 Capital Holding Center Louisville, KY 40202-3363 Attorney for Defendant '21' International Holdings, Inc./ Scotfoam Joseph M. Price, Esquire Faegre & Benson 2200 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Attorney for Defendant 3M Douglas B. Schoettinger, Esquire Dow Corning Corporation CO 1222 Midland, MI 48666-0995 Attorney for Defendant Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation S. Gordon Elkins, Esquire Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young 2600 One Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Defendants Surgitek, Inc., Cabot Medical Corp. and Circon Corporation DEFENDANTS'COUNSEL: Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire Peter J. Curry, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 John Bass, Esquire Grogan, Graffam, McGinley & Lucchino Three Gateway Center, 22nd FI. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Evan Black, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 101 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Robert M. Britton, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 19th Floor, 1800 JFK Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103-7480 James D. Coleman, Esquire Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll Fifty-First Floor, 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Howard M. Cyr, III, Esquire Harvey, Pennington, Herting & Renneisen, Ltd. Nineteenth Floor - Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 David Bahl, Esquire McCormick, Reeder, Nichols, Bahl, Knecht & Person 835 West Fourth Street P.O. Box 577 Williamsport, PA 17701 B. Craig Black, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Thomas J. Bradley, Esquire McBreen, McBreen & Kopko Suite 900, 1760 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Ellen G. Casey, Esquire Office of Legal Affairs University of PA Medical Center Seven Penn Tower 3400 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Anthony E. Creato, Esquire Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe, Cramer & Jamieson 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7598 Mark F. DiGiovanni, Esquire David Sumner, Esquire Jacobson, Maymaid, Tuschman & Kalui 1787 Sentry Parkway West Suite 450, Bldg. 16 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Rachel B. Eisner, Esquire Dechert, Price & Rhoads 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Timothy Foley, Esquire Foley, Cognetti & Comurford 700 Scranton Electric Bldg. 907 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18505-16666 Giles J. Gaca, Esquire Gaca, Matis & Baum, P.C. 300 Four PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Cy Goldberg, Esquire Edward France, Esquire Cy Goldberg & Associates Suite 1320-The Atlantic Building 260 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 James Griffith, Esquire Wolf, Block; Schorr & Solis-Cohen Packard Building 15th & Chestnut Streets, 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102-2678 Walter S. Jenkins, Esquire Sweeney, Sheehan & Spencer, P.C. Nineteenth Floor - 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Noreen P. Kemether, Esquire Galli, Reilly & Stellato Suite 2575, 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Grant H. Fleming, Esquire Alan Meely, Esquire McQuaide Blasko Law Offices 811 University Drive State College, PA 16801 Robert S. Forster, Jr., Esquire Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis Suite 3600, 1600 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4252 Alan S. Gold, Esquire Monaghan & Gold Manor Professional Building 7837 Old York Road Elkins Park, PA 19117 Frederic L. Goldfein, Esquire Goldfein & Joseph The Packard Building Seventeenth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 P. Brennan Hart, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin USX Tower, 600 Grant Street, Ste 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 E. Michael Keating, Esquire Hollstein, Keating, Cattell, Johnson & Goldstein, P.C. Ste. 1602, 1608 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Bebe H. Kivitz, Esquire Hoyle, Morris & Kerr 4900 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-1397 Victoria Komarnicki, Esquire Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg Sixteenth Floor, 1601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2316 Jane Korein Kushon, Esquire Sand & Saidel, P.C. 113 South Twenty-First Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Marshall & Farrell, P.C. 1323 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Michael W. McGuckin, Esquire McGuckin & McCarthy 521 Plymouth Road, Suite 115 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 D. Madelaine Miller, Esquire Obermeyer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippell 111 S. 15th Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Dean Murtagh, Esquire Cathy Lourenco, Esquire German, Gallagher & Murtagh The Bellevue, Suite 500 200 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Cheryl M. Nicholson, Esquire Dunne, Haase, Sullivan, Mallon, Cherner & Broadt 216 South Orange Street Media, PA 19063 Gilda L. Kramer, Esquire Suite 1100, 1500 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 John J. Leonard, Esquire Lisa A. Sheluga, Esquire Leonard, Tillery & Davison Eighteenth FI., 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102-2068 Edward C. McCardle, Esquire King, McCardle, Herman, Freund & Olexa 110-112 North Sixth Street P.O. Box 449 Allentown, PA 181015 Michael McKernan, Esquire McKernan & McCartin, P.C. Suite 300, 502 W. Office Center Drive For[ Washington, PA 19034 Jeremy Mishkin, Esquire Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads Twentieth Floor - Three Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19102 Lynn Nahmani, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin One Montgomery Plaza, Suite 1002 Norristown, PA 19401 Beatrice O'Donnell, Esquire Duane, Morris & Hecksher One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396 Naomi Plakins O'Neil, Esquire Suite 300, 100 South Main Street P.O. Box 1287 Doylestown, PA 18901 Kathleen M. Quarto, Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Vincent Patrick Reilly, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 1800 Campus Boulevard, Suite 250 Newtown Square, PA 19073 David Richman, Esquire Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Amaiia V. Romanowicz, Esquire Wright, Young & McGilvery 1400 Union Meeting Road Suite 220 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Madeline Sherry, Esquire Hecker, Brown, Sherry & Johnson 1700 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 John Skrocki, Esquire McWilliams & Mintzer Eight Penn Center Plaza 20th Floor, 1628 JFK Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 John R. Sparks, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 237 North Prince Street Lancaster, PA 17603 Deborah P. Olszewski, Esquire Klym, Olszewski & Nedik 1600 Grant Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Diane Quinlin, Esquire Grogan, Graffam, McGinley & Lucchino Three Gateway Center, 22nd FI. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Thomas Reilly, Esquire Gallagher, Reilly & Lachat, P.C. 2000 Market Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Frederic Roller, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4717 Eugene F. Scanlon, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 400 Two PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phillip B. Silverman, Esquire Harris & Silverman Twenty-Fifth Floor 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 John J. Snyder, Esquire McDonald & Snyder Suite 526, Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19102 Edwin L. Stock, Esquire Roland & Schlegal, P.C. 627 North Fourth Street P.O. Box 902 Reading, PA 19603 James C. Stroud, Esquire Rawle & Henderson The Weidener Building One South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 William J, Taylor, Esquire Taylor & Taylor Suite 811, 1801 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Joseph M. Walker, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 20 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 1801-4318 Jim Wilson, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 507 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL: John P. Kopesky, Esquire Sheller, Ludwig &Badey Third Floor, 1528 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Linda Port Sweeney, Esquire German, Gallagher & Murtagh 40 East Grant Avenue Lancaster, PA 17602 Stephen W. Trout, Esquire Murphy, Taylor, Trout & Chestak, P.C. Suite 1100-1616 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Allan Warshaw, Esquire Duane, Morris & Hecksher 305 North Front Street P,O. Box 1003 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1003 C. James Zeszutek, Esquire Thorpe, Reed & Armstrong One Riverfront Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE Michael D. Pipa, Esqu~ Sup. Crt. I.D. #53624 ' 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital o oas-oo249/ w/ ~OEEPM M. ~ALKER, ESQUIRE MA~BNALL, DENNEHEY, #ARNER, 20 EA8~ CO~R~ 8~REE~ DOYLESTONN, PA 18901 (215) 340-5460 ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 02417 coL u m GOGGIN Pi' t I: O2 Attorney for Defend~5'/~ ,~ ': · U"' * 8a~tr J. Broujt, M.D~.U ,, ,A IN THE UNITED STATEE DISTRICT COUNT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA - 80UTHERN DISTRICT DEBORAH ANN DOYLE AND JOHN MACK DOYLE H/W ADMIRAL MATERIAL8 CORPORATION n/k/a Mentor Polymer Teoh. AND AESTHETECH CORPORATION : ~ND APPLIED EILIC0NE CORPORATION : AND BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION successor in interest of Heyer: Bchulte, American Hospital : Supply Corp., American Eeyer- 8ohulte corporation, Travenol : Labs, Inc., and Baxter : Travenol Labs, /no. AND : BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC. ~ : BRISTOL-MYER8 SQUIBB AND COMPANY f/k/a Bristol-Myers company : AND : THE COOPER COMPANIEE, INC. : in~ivi~ually an4 as successors: in interest to Natural Y : Surgical Specialities, Inc. an4 Aestheteoh Formerly Known : as Coopervieion, Inc. : COOPER SURGICAL, INC. a wholly: owned subs/diary of the Cooper Companies, Inc. : AND : COX-UPMOFF : a/k/a CUI Corporation AND DOW CORNING CORPORATION DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION: MASTER FILE NO. NO. 95-P-18285-8 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY HULS ~MERICA, INC. f/k/a Petrarach Systems, Inc. INAMED CORPORATION AND 21 INTERNATIONAL INC. £/k/a Knoll International: Holdings, Inc. {f/k/a Foamex = Products, Inc.) f/k/a ~ootfoam: Corporation f/k/a General Felt= Industries, Inc. f/k/e Eddy : Acquisitions now operating : under the fictitious name cE : Foamex, a DiVision o£ KIHI : AND MGGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION (a California corporation} and= McGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION (a Delaware Corporation) AND McGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION a/k/& Nusil Technologies AND : MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION d/bls Surgitek : a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers squibb AND MINNESOTA MINING E : MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. individually and as a : successor in interest to McGhan Medical Corporation (a california Corporation) a/k/a 3M end McGhan Medical : corporation 3M Center : ~ : NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC. AND SCOTT PAPER COMPANY : AND : SIROD CORPORATION : AND : UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND : PLASTICS COMPANY, INC. AND UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION AND WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a WILSHIRE FOAM PRODUCTS, INC. AND SAMIR SROUJI, M.D. AND PLASTIC SURGERY, PoC. AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL PRAECIPE TO JOIN IN REBPONSE Defendant Samir J. Srouji, M.D., by and through his counsel, Joseph M. Walker, partner in the firm of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, 20 East Court Street, Doylestown, Pa. 18901, hereby joins in and incorporates by reference as though more fully set forth herein at length, the response of liaison counsel to plaintiffs' "Motion for Severance or, in the alternative, for Conditional Dismissal with Prejudice, and Motion to Remand and Abstain from Nondebtor Breast Implant Litigation" and the arguments and relief requested therein. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Attorney for Defendant(s) Date: VERIFICATION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF BUCKS JOSEPH M. WALKER, ESQUIRE, being duly sworn according to law, does depose and say that he is a partner of the firm of MARSHALL, DENNEHE¥, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, Esquires, attorne~ of record for the within named Defendant, and being authorized so to do does take this Affidavit stating that the facts contained therein are true and correct to knowledge and belief. This Verification being Consolidated Statutes, Section penalties for making false statements. the best of his information, subject 4904 which to 18 Pennsylvania provides for certain MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & ~O~IN WALKER, ESQUIRE Date: STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP By: S. Gordon Elkins Daniel T. Fitch Kimberly A. Hendrix I.D. Nos. 02789/53717/76623 2600 One Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-8000 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Deborah Ann Doyle and John Mack,w/h Plaintiff(s) Cooper Surgical, Inc., et al. Defendant Attorneys for: Aesthetech Corp., Bristol- Myers Squibb Co., The Cooper Companies. Inc., Cooper Surgical, Inc., Medical Engineering Corp., Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc., Sirod Corporation, and Wilshire Technologies, Inc., f/k/a Wilshire Foam Products, Inc. CIVIL ACTION NO. 95-P-18285-S SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE Please withdraw our appearance as attorneys for Defendants, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Medical Engineering Corporation, The Cooper Companies, Inc., Cooper Surgical, Inc., Sirod Corporation, Aesthetech Corporation, Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. and Wilshire Technologies, Inc., f/k/a Wilshire Foam Products, Inc. Dated: 3/~./5 ~ STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, By: S. Gordon Elkins Daniel T. Fitch Kimberly A. Hendrix 2600 One Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-8000 LLP ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendants, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Medical Engineering Corporation, The Cooper Companies, Inc., Cooper Surgical, Inc., Sirod Corporation, Aesthetech Corporation, Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. and Wilshire Technologies, Inc., f/k/a Wilshire Foam Products, Inc. / H By: Ther~ K'eeley Glenn P. Callahan Barbara Gotthelf Carolyn J. Campanella I.D. Nos. 40813/48355/53832/70846 One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, Suite 3250 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 557-7700 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kimberly A. to be served by United. States upon the following: Hendrix, hereby certify that on caused a copy of the foregoing pleading first class mail, postage pre-paid, Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire Sheller, Ludwig & Badey 1528 Walnut Street Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert S. Forster, Esquire Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis 1600 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103--4252 Attorneys for Defendants, Dow Corning Corp. and Dow Corning Wright Corp. Robert M. Britton, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, '21' Inter'l Holdings, Inc. and Scott Paper Company Admiral Materials Corporation n/k/a/ Mentor Polymer Tech 5425 Hollister Avenue Santa Barbara, CA 93111 Gilda L. Kramer, Esquire 1500 Walnut Street Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA' 19102 Attorneys for Defendants, Applied Silicone Corp and McGhan Nusil Corp. Madeline Sherry, Esquire Hecker, Brown, Sherry & Johnson 1700 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, Baxter Healthcare Corp. and Baxter International, Inc. Michael J. Trotter, Esquire Baker, Silverberg & Keener 2850 Ocean Park Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Attorneys for Defendant, Huls America, Inc. E. Michael Keating, III, Esquire Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein P.C. Suite 1602 1608 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendant, General Electric Company Jeremy Mishkin, Esquire Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads Three Parkway, 20th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendant, Union Carbide Corp. Allan H. Starr, Esquire White and Williams 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395 Attorneys for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital C. James Zeszutek, Esquire Thorpe, Reed & Armstrong One Riverfront Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Attorneys for Defendant, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company Cox Uphoff a/k/a CUI Corporation 1160 Mark Avenue Carpinteria, CA 93013 Inamed Corporation 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109 McGhan Medical Corporation 700 Ward Drive South Santa Barbara, CA 93111-2936 16194 Doyle, Deborah A~-n ATTE/,~<.~'"'/~J~/~ .~ ' ~D S~ATES D.STRICT'COURT District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania (Philadelphia~.s. I~LO. ~I: ~, , CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 95-CV-6372 DOYLE, et al v. ADMIRAL MATERIALS, et al Assigned to: JUDGE DONALD W. VANARTSDALEN Demand: $0,000 Lead Docket: None Dkt# in other court: None Filed: t0/05/95 Jury demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 365 Jurisdiction: Diversity Cause: 28:1452 Removal of Claim in Civil Action Related to BK. Case DEBORAH ANN DOYLE PLAINTIFF JAMIE L. SHELLER [COR LD NTC] SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEY 1528 WALNUT STREET, 3RD FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 JOHN MACK DOYLE, w/h PLAINTIFF JAMIE L. SHELLER (See above) [COR LD NTC] ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORPORATION n/k/a MENTOR POLYMER TECH. DEFENDANT AESTHETECH CORPORATION DEFENDANT DONNA M. DEVER [COR LD NTC] STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG 2600 ONE CO~ERCE SQUARE FHILA, PA 19103-7098 USA APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION DEFENDANT BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, successor in interest of Heyer-Schulte, American Hospital Supply Corp., American Heyer-Schulte MADELINE M. SHERRY [COR LD NTC] HECKER, BROWN, SHERRY AND JOHNSON 18TH & ARCH STREETS Docket as of December 19, 1995 9:22 am Page 1 Proceedings include all events. 2:95cv6372 DOYLE, et al v. ADMIRAL MATERIALS, et al Corporation, Travenol Labs, Inc., and Baxter Travenol Labs, Inc. DEFENDANT 1700 TWO LOGkN SQUARE PHILA, PA 19103 USA DOW e-SPEC BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB AND COMPANY f/k/a BRISTOL-MEYERS CO. DEFENDANT DONNA M. DEVER (See above) [COR LD NTC] THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC., individually and as successor in interest to Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. and Aesthetech Formerly Known as Coopervision, Inc. DEFENDANT DONNA M. DEVER (See above) [COR LD NTC] COOPER SURGICAL, DEFENDANT INC. DONNA M. DEVER (See above) [COR LD NTC] COX-UPHOFF a/k/a CUI CORPORATION DEFENDANT DOW CORNING CORPORATION DEFENDANT ROBERT S. FORSTER, JR. [COR LD NTC] KRUSEN, EVANS & BYRNE 601 WALNUT STREET 'THE CURTIS CENTER, STE. PHII2%, PA 19106-3393 USA 1100 DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION DEFENDANT ROBERT S. FORSTER, (See above) [COR LD NTC] JR. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. DEFENDANT HULS AMERICA, INC. f/k/a · PETRARCH SYSTEMS, INC. Docket as of December 19, 1995 9:22 am Page 2 Proceedings include all events, e-SPEC 2:95cv6372 DOYLE, et al v. ADMIRAL MATERIALS, et al DEFENDANT DOW INAMED CORPORATION DEFENDANT 21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a KNOLL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a FOAMEX PRODUCTS, INC. f/k/a SCOTFOAM CORPORATION f/k/a GENERAL FELT INDUSTRIES, INC. f/k/a EDDY ACQUISITIONS NOW OPERATING UNDER THE FICTITIOUS NAME OF FOAMEX A DIVISION OF KIHI DEFENDANT MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION DEFENDANT MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION DEFENDANT MCGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION a/k/a NUSIL TECHNOLOGIES DEFENDANT MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION d/b/a SURGITEK A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB DEFENDANT MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., individually and as a successor in interest to McGhan Medical Corporation (a Docket as of December 19, 1995 9:22 am Page 3 Proceedings include all events. 2:95cv6372 DOYLE, et al v. ADMIRAL MATERIALS, California Corporation) a/k/a 3M and McGhan Medical Corporation DEFENDANT et al DOW e-SPEC NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC. DEFENDANT DONNA M. DEVER (See above) [COR LD NTC] SCOTT PAPER COMPANY DEFENDANT SIROD CORPORATION DEFENDANT DONNA M. DEVER (See above) [COR LD NTC] UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS COMPANY, INC. DEFENDANT WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a WILSHIRE FOAM PRODUCTS, INC. DEFENDANT DONNA M. DEVER (See above) [COR LD NTC] SAMIR SPROUJI, M.D. DEFENDANT PLASTIC SURGERY P.C. DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT Docket as of December 19, 1995 9:22 am Page 4 Proceedings include all events. 2:95cv6372 DOYLE, et al v. ADMIRAL MATERIALS, 10/5/95 i 10/5/95 10/10/95 -- 11/1/95 2 11/6/95 3 e-SPEC et al DOW Notice of removal by DEFENDANT DOW CORNING CORP, DEFENDANT DOW CORNING WRIGHT from the Court of Common Pleas of , Phila, April term 1992, No. 135 filing fee $ 120 (sb) [Entry date 10/10/95] Special Case Management Track. (sb) [Entry date 10/10/95] Filing Fee Paid; filing fee $ 120.00 receipt # 570917 [Entry date 10/12/95] verification of service by Thomas J. Pellegrino re: served copy of Notice of Removal filed by DEFENDANT DOW CORNING CORP. upon the Prothonotary of Court of Common Pleas and all interested parties by first class mail. (jef) [Entry date 11/02/95] Statement by MEC DEFENDANTS Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedur~ 9027(e) in the Notice of Removal, certificate of service. (ks) [Entry date 11/07/95] (sl) 11/6/95 Demand for jury trial by PLAINTIFF DEBORAH ANN DOYLE, PLAINTIFF JOHN MACK DOYLE (lb) [Entry date 11/07/95] 11/6/9s 5 11/9/95 6 11/20/95 7 11/27/95 8 12/18/95 9 12/18/95 -- Statement by PLAINTIFF DEBORAR ANN DOYLE, PLAINTIFF JOHN MACK DOYLE Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027(e) in the Notice of Removal. (fb) [Entry date 11/07/95] Notice of filing order to remand by DEFENDANT BAXTER HF2%LTHCARE Certificate of Service. (mc) [Entry date 11/14/95] Original record together with certified copy of docket entries received from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. (rd) Notice of Joinder by PLAINTIFF DEBORA~ ANN DOYLE, PLAINTIFF JOHN MACK DOYLE to Baxter Healthcare Corp's notice of filing order to remand. (cmc) [Entry date 11/28/95] Conditional Transfer Order that this case is hereby transferred to Northern District of Alabama. (cl) [Entry date 12/19/95] Certified copy of docket entries forwarded to Northern District of Alabama. (cl) [Entry date 12/19/95] )ocket as of December 19, 1995 9:22 am Page 5 DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire I.D. No: 27594 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire I.D. No.: 78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (7'17) 731-4800 Attorneys for Defendants DEBORAH ANN DOYLE and JOHN MACK DOYLE, wife and husband Plaintiff VS. ADMIRAL MATERIALS CORPORATION; AESTHETECH CORPORATION; APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION; BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; BAXTER : INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BRISTOL-MEYERS: SQUIBB AND COMPANY; THE COOPER : COMPANIES, INC.; COOPER SURGICAL, : INC.; COX-UPHOFF, DOW CORINING : CORPORATION; DOW CORNING : WRIGHT CORPORATION; GENERAL : ELECTRIC CO.; HULS AMERICA, INC.; : INAMED CORPORATION; 21 : INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.; MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION; : MCGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION; : MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION;: MINNESOTA MINING & : MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; : NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, : INC.; SCOTT PAPER COMPANY; SIROD : CORPORAITON; UNION CARBIDE : CHEMICAL AND PLASTICS COMPANY, : INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; : WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. INC.; : SAMIR SROUJI, M.D., PLASTIC : SURGERY, P.C. AND HOLY SPIRIT : HOSPITAL : Defendants : Docket No: 2004-05027 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-. LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER TO DISCONTINUE ,AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above captioned matter discontinued and ended, upon payment of your costs only. SHELLER, LUD\N_~~ Attorney for the Plaintiff