Roth 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: 	REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
16-cv-384 (Roth)
16-cv-545 (Estate of Andras)
16-cv-3242 (Lantz)
Individual plaintiff’s counsel in the above-captioned cases moved to withdraw in
October 2025. The Court granted the motion, directing substitute counsel to enter an
appearance on or before January 13, 2026. The Court warned that “[i]f Plaintiffs fail to
retain substitute counsel or otherwise respond to this Order by January 13, 2026, the
Court will recommend their cases be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” The Court also
directed withdrawing counsel to serve Plaintiffs with a copy of the order. Plaintiffs failed
to retain counsel or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.1 Without any indication that
Plaintiffs desire to prosecute their cases, the Court recommends dismissal without
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT: the following
three cases be dismissed without prejudice: 16-cv-384 (Roth), 16-cv-545 (Estate of
Andras), and 16-cv-3242 (Lantz).
Dated: January 23, 2026 	__s/ David T. Schultz_________
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
United States Magistrate Judge
1 Plaintiff Richard Smith (Case No. 16-cv-385), who was subject to the same order, filed
a letter asking to proceed pro se after he was unable to find an attorney to take his case.
Therefore, the Court does not recommend that Smith’s case be dismissed.
CASE 0:16-cv-00384-JNE-DTS Doc. 20 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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-00384-JNE-DTS Doc. 20 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 2