Serra et al v. 3M Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR 	MDL No. 15-md-2666 (JNE/DTS)
WARMING PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
This Document Relates to: 	ORDER & REPORT AND
Theresa Serra and Barry Serra, 	RECOMMENDATION
v.
3M Company, et al.,
16-cv-4236
Plaintiffs Theresa and Barry Serra filed this Bair Hugger case in December 2016.
See Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Barry Serra is a loss-of-consortium plaintiff. See id. at 3. In 2017,
Barry and Theresa Serra divorced. Dkt. No. 30 ¶ 2. Barry Serra has not been in contact
with his counsel since 2017. Cf. Dkt. No. 30. In 2025, this case was selected as one of
150 to be worked up for trial. See Dkt. No. 10; MDL Dkt. No. 2799. Discovery closed on
December 31, 2025. See Dkt. No. 14.
Attorney Charles Houssiere moved to withdraw from his representation of Barry
Serra. Dkt. No. 30. Defendants objected, arguing that Barry Serra had failed to prosecute
his loss-of-consortium claim. Dkt. No. 32. The Court ordered Barry Serra to file a response
on or before January 7, 2026, showing cause why his loss-of consortium claim should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 34. Attorney Charles Houssiere filed a letter
stating that his firm provided a copy of the Court’s order to Barry Serra but did not receive
a response. Dkt. No. 35. Without any indication that Barry Serra desires to prosecute his
loss-of-consortium claim, the Court recommends dismissal without prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
CASE 0:16-cv-04236-JNE-DTS Doc. 37 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 2

2
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. 	Attorney Charles Houssiere Motion to Withdraw (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED;
and
2. 	Attorney Charles Houssiere shall make a good-faith effort to provide a copy
of this Order & Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff Barry Serra.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that: Plaintiff Barry
Serra’s loss-of-consortium claim be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Dated: January 26, 2026 	__s/ David T. Schultz_________
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court. It is not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All
objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set for in LR 72.2(c).
CASE 0:16-cv-04236-JNE-DTS Doc. 37 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 2