Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1167 Filed 11/25/20 Page 1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING SALES
`PRACTICE AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`LITIGATION
`This Document Relates to All Plaintiffs Identified in
`Exhibit A
`
`3:19-md-02913 (WHO)
`
`Hon. William H. Orrick
`
`JUUL LABS, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO CONVERT ORDER OF DISMISSAL
`WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 15, 2021, or as soon thereafter as this matter may be
`heard, in Courtroom 2 of this Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 17th Floor, San Francisco,
`California, Defendant Juul Labs, Inc. (“JLI”) will and hereby does move for the Court to convert its Order
`of Dismissal Without Prejudice (ECF No. 1073) to an order of dismissal with prejudice for plaintiffs
`identified in Exhibit A to JLI’s Motion for failure to submit discovery required by Case Management
`Order No. 8. The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and the following Motion to Convert.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JLI’s Notice of Motion to Convert
`Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice To
`Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1167 Filed 11/25/20 Page 2 of 7
`
`/s/ Renee D. Smith/
`Renee D. Smith
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654-3406
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
`Renee.Smith@kirkland.com
`
`Peter A. Farrell, P.C.
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`Peter.farrell@kirkland.com
`Gregory P. Stone (SBN 78329)
`gregory.stone@mto.com
`Bethany W. Kristovich (SBN 241891)
`bethany.kristovich@mto.com
`John M. Gildersleeve (SBN 284618)
`john.gildersleeve@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
`Telephone: (213) 683-9100
`Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
`Attorneys for Defendant Juul Labs, Inc.
`
`2
`
`JLI’s Notice of Motion to Convert
`Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice To
`Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
`
`Dated: November 25, 2020
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1167 Filed 11/25/20 Page 3 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 25, 2020, I electronically served the foregoing Motion on all
`counsel of record in this action using the CM/ECF system.
`
`/s/ Renee D. Smith
`Renee D. Smith
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`JLI’s Notice of Motion to Convert
`Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice To
`Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1167 Filed 11/25/20 Page 4 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING SALES
`PRACTICE AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`LITIGATION
`This Document Relates to All Plaintiffs Identified in
`Exhibit A
`
`3:19-md-02913 (WHO)
`
`Hon. William H. Orrick
`
`JUUL LABS, INC.’S MOTION TO CONVERT ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
`PREJUDICE TO ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
`
`On October 21, 2020 this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 1073), dismissing without prejudice
`the claims of certain plaintiffs who had failed to submit a substantially complete Plaintiff Fact Sheet
`(“PFS”) in compliance with Case Management Order (“CMO”) No. 8 (ECF No. 406). Upon entry of the
`Court’s Order, those plaintiffs had 30 days to submit a substantially complete PFS, in which case, the
`parties would submit a stipulated motion to vacate the dismissal without prejudice Order. (See CMO No.
`8 § 13.) Otherwise, plaintiffs’ claims would be subject to dismissal with prejudice upon a motion to
`convert the order of dismissal without prejudice to an order of dismissal with prejudice by Juul Labs, Inc.
`(“JLI”). (Id.) The 42 plaintiffs identified in the attached Exhibit A each failed to submit a complete PFS
`since this Court entered the Order dismissing their claims without prejudice. (Affidavit of Christina
`Sharkey (“Aff.”) ¶¶ 3–4.)
`The Court should dismiss these plaintiffs with prejudice pursuant to its power to manage its
`dockets “without being subject to endless non-compliance with case management orders,” which is
`amplified in the MDL context. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217,
`1227 (9th Cir. 2006). As the Ninth Circuit observed, “an MDL court’s decision to invoke dismissal as a
`sanction for failure to comply with its orders” “is necessarily informed, and broadened, by the number of
`actions, their complexity, and its charge in the multidistrict context to promote the just and efficient
`conduct of actions that are coordinated or consolidated for pretrial purposes.” Id. at 1252. Thus, dismissal
`with prejudice for failure to submit a PFS as required by an MDL Court Order is common MDL practice.
`
`4
`
`JLI’s Motion to Convert
`Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice To
`Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1167 Filed 11/25/20 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Ex. B, In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2545, CMO
`No. 118, ECF No. 2612 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2018) (“The failure of these plaintiffs to comply with the PPF
`[Plaintiff Profile Form] requirements of CMO 85 amounts to an unjustified failure to produce discovery
`following entry of a court order. The failure to produce discovery is prejudicial to the defendants in these
`cases because it hinders the investigation and preparation of a defense in these cases. For those reasons,
`the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss with prejudice all such cases.”); Ex. C, In re: General Motors
`LLC Ignition Switch Litig. 14-MD-2543, Order No. 56, ECF No. 985 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2015) (“[T]he
`Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate sanction for the individual Plaintiffs’ continued
`failure to submit PFSs as required by Order No. 25. . . . [T]imely submission of PFSs is essential to the
`orderly and expeditious management of this MDL, and crucial in ensuring that [Defendant] has adequate
`notice of the claims against it.”); Ex. D, In re PPA Prods. Liab. Litig., 01-MD-1407, Order Granting
`Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, ECF No. 1935 (W.D. Wa. Aug. 15, 2003) (“[T]he unreasonabl[e] delay
`in completing the fact sheets and affirmations prejudices the Defendants’ ability to proceed with the cases
`effectively. The PFS and affirmations are designed to give each defendant the specific information
`necessary to defend the case against it. . . . The unreasonable delay in producing this information,
`therefore, severely prejudices the Defendants, warranting dismissal.”).
`Accordingly, pursuant to CMO No. 8 and the Court’s October 21, 2020 Order (ECF No. 1073),
`JLI respectfully requests the Court enter an order dismissing the claims of the 42 plaintiffs identified on
`Exhibit A with prejudice.
`
`
`Dated: November 25, 2020
`
`/s/ Renee D. Smith
`Renee D. Smith
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654-3406
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
`Renee.Smith@kirkland.com
`
`Peter A. Farrell, P.C.
`KIRKLAND & ELLI LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`5
`
`JLI’s Motion to Convert
`Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice To
`Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1167 Filed 11/25/20 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`Peter.farrell@kirkland.com
`Gregory P. Stone (SBN 78329)
`gregory.stone@mto.com
`Bethany W. Kristovich (SBN 241891)
`bethany.kristovich@mto.com
`John M. Gildersleeve (SBN 284618)
`john.gildersleeve@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
`Telephone: (213) 683-9100
`Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
`Attorneys for Defendant Juul Labs, Inc.
`
`6
`
`JLI’s Motion to Convert
`Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice To
`Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1167 Filed 11/25/20 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on November 25, 2020, I electronically served the foregoing Motion on all
`counsel of record in this action using the CM/ECF system.
`
`
`/s/ Renee D. Smith
`Renee D. Smith
`
`
`JLI’s Motion to Convert
`Order Of Dismissal Without Prejudice To
`Order Of Dismissal With Prejudice
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`