IN RE: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

CASE 0:15-md-02666-JNE-DTS
Doc. 3261 Filed 12/12/25
Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
In re: BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR WARMING DEVICES PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 15-2666 (JNE/DTS)
This Order Relates to:
REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION
19-cv-01630 (Brown, John) 25-cv-01596 (Jewell, Michael)
25-cv-01601 (Collins, Sherry)
25-cv-01637 (Vierra, Michael)
25-cv-01639 (Perkins, Linda)
25-cv-01641 (Dingman, Robert) 25-cv-01652 (Lininger, Jaydee)
25-cv-01654 (Fishel, Dean and Leona Pankrats)
25-cv-01687 (Batton, Voris)
25-cv-01765 (Baldwin, Rosemary)
25-cv-01767 (Stroud, William)
25-cv-01773 (Dean, Michael and Jane Dean)
25-cv-01791 (Anderson, Roy) 25-cv-01802 (Iervolino, Lucille) 25-cv-01806 (Ulrich, Tammy)
25-cv-01809 (Stout, Jesse)
25-cv-01821 (Crafard, James)
25-cv-01827 (Black, Brenda)
25-cv-01831 (Bli, Lyn)
25-cv-01833 (Goodin, Rachel)
25-cv-01836 (Robbins, Thomas Jr.)
25-cv-01865 (Martino, Samuel)
25-cv-01872 (Schroeder, Deborah)
25-cv-01877 (Vallie, Corey) 25-cv-01880 (Figg, Brenda)
25-cv-01889 (Pope, Teresa)
25-cv-01893 (Wagner, Timothy)
25-cv-01898 (Schultz, Leo)
25-cv-01901 (Smith, Alice and Charles)
25-cv-01903 (Provost, Michael)
25-cv-01905 (Quick, Lynn) 25-cv-01922 (Keuntjes, Mark) 25-cv-01924 (Linney, Fawna) 25-cv-01979 (Lubarsky, Jennifer) 25-cv-01998 (Craft, James)
25-cv-02259 (McClain, Carlos)
25-cv-02351 (Choate, Ronald)
25-cv-02374 (Williams, Gary)
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
25-cv-02416 (Bacon, Rebecca)
25-cv-02462 (McGill, Thomas)
BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2025, the Court issued an order adopting a clear process for dismissing
cases in which plaintiffs fail to timely serve a PFS under Pretrial Order No. 14. Dkt. No.
2906. Per this Order, Defendants are to circulate a list identifying cases in which plaintiffs
have failed to serve a PFS, and if plaintiffs dispute the accuracy of Defendants’ list,
plaintiffs are to raise the issue at the subsequent status conference. After each status
conference, the Court will enter an order to show cause directing the listed plaintiffs to
either serve a PFS before the next status conference or appear and explain why their
case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with PTO 14.
On August 25, 2025, Defendants circulated a list of cases in which plaintiffs failed
to serve a PFS (August List 1). At the August 28, 2025 status conference, the Court
explained that it would delay its next order to show cause until the October 2, 2025 status
conference, and would direct plaintiffs to serve verified PFSs by the November 3, 2025
status conference or appear and show good cause as to why their case should not be
dismissed for failure to comply with PTO 14. Some plaintiffs served a verified PFS before
the deadline, but 69 cases in which plaintiffs failed to submit a verified PFS, which were
not already subject to another Report and Recommendation, were put on an Order to
Show Cause issued October 24, 2025. Dkt. No. 3152.
On September 26, 2025, Defendants circulated a list of cases in which plaintiffs
failed to serve a PFS (September List 1). At the October 2, 2025 status conference, no
plaintiff disputed the accuracy of the list. Therefore, 16 cases on the September List 1
were also placed on the October 24, 2025 Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 3152, and
CASE 0:15-md-02666-JNE-DTS Doc. 3261 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 7

3
directed to serve verified PFSs by the November 3, 2025 status conference or appear
and show good cause as to why their case should not be dismissed for failure to comply
with PTO 14.
In early November, Defendants circulated a list of cases that had still failed to serve
a PFS by the November 3, 2025 deadline and were thus subject to dismissal. At the
December 2, 2025 status conference, Cliff Walston represented that he had submitted
PFSs for 8 of this cases between November 3, 2025 and December 2, 2025, and argued
that these cases should be removed from the list of cases subject to dismissal because
the November 3, 2025 status conference had been stricken. Defendants agreed to
remove these 8 cases from the list. The cases that remain are listed in the caption to this
Report and Recommendation.
ANALYSIS
I. 	Legal Standard
If a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with PTO 14, the Court may dismiss the
case. PTO 14 ¶ 8, Dkt. No. 117; see Dkt. Nos. 577, 622, 692, 862, 1028, 1060, 1100,
1167, 1237, 1257, 1298, 1376, 1431, 1564, 1609, 1888 (dismissing more than 50 cases
where plaintiffs failed to serve a PFS and more than 75 cases where plaintiffs failed to
verify a PFS)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Such dismissal may be with prejudice “in
cases of willful disobedience of a court order or where a litigant exhibits a pattern of
intentional delay.” Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8th Cir. 2000). This
does not require a finding of bad faith, but “merely that the plaintiff acted deliberately as
opposed to accidentally.” First Gen. Res. Co. v. Elton Leather Corp., 958 F.2d 204, 206
(8th Cir. 1992). A “pattern of intentional delay” includes where a plaintiff fails to comply
with a court order despite multiple opportunities for compliance and the Court’s warning
CASE 0:15-md-02666-JNE-DTS Doc. 3261 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 7

CASE 0:15-md-02666-JNE-DTS Doc. 3261 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 7
that noncompliance may result in dismissal. Id. As the Court has previously explained, when afforded multiple opportunities for compliance, "failure to comply with PTO 14 . . . warrants dismissal with prejudice." Order 3, Dkt. No. 1888.
As discussed below, PTO 14 builds in multiple opportunities for compliance: 90 days to serve a verified PFS as provided by PTO 14, a listing of cases by Defendants with missing PFSs, and the Court's newly-established show-cause procedure which here permitted an additional 28 days to cure.
II. Failure to Serve PFSs
The Court finds that the following 40 plaintiffs subject to the Order failed to serve a PFS before the Order to Show Cause's November 3, 2025 deadline:
Case Number
Title
Firm Name
19-cv-01630
Brown, John v. 3M Co. et al.
Law Offices of Charles H Johnson
25-cv-01596
Jewell v. 3M Co. et al.
Rosen Injury Lawyers
25-cv-01601
Collins v. 3M Co. et al.
Rosen Injury Lawyers
25-cv-01637
Vierra v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01639
Perkins v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01641
Dingman v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01652
Lininger v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01654
Fishel, et al. v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01687
Batton v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01765
Baldwin v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01767
Stroud v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01773
Dean, et al. v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-CV-01791
Anderson v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01802
Iervolino v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01806
Ulrich, Tammy v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01809
Stout v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01821
Crafard v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01827
Black v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
25-cv-01831
Bli v. 3M Co. et al.
Walston, PC
4

5
25-cv-01833 	Goodin v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01836 	Robbins v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01865 	Martino v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01872 	Schroeder v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01877 	Vallie v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01880 	Figg v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01889 	Pope v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01893 	Wagner v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01898 	Schultz v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01901 	Smith, et al. v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01903 	Provost v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01905 	Quick v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01922 	Keuntjes v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01924 	Linney v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-01979 	Lubarsky v. 3M Co. et al. 	Slater Slater Schulman LLP
25-cv-01998 	Craft v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-02259 	McClain, Carlos v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-02351 	Choate, Ronald v. 3M Co. et al. 	Walston, PC
25-cv-02374 	Williams, Gary v. 3M Co. et al. 	Rosen Injury Lawyers
25-cv-02416 	Bacon, Rebecca v. 3M Co. et
al.
Kaster, Lynch, Farrar & Ball
25-cv-02462 	McGill, Thomas v. 3M Co. et al. 	Kaster, Lynch, Farrar & Ball
For each of these 40 cases in the above table where Plaintiffs have failed to serve
a PFS, the Court recommends dismissal. The recommendation rests on the same
considerations explained in previous recommendations for dismissal for failure to comply
with PTO 14. Dkt. No. 2921 at 12–16; Dkt. No. 2951 at 2–3. First, each plaintiff was aware
they had 90 days to serve a verified PFS under the rules of PTO 14. Second, each plaintiff
was reminded of their failure to serve a PFS by their appearance on the August List 1
and/or the September List 1. Third, each plaintiff had ample opportunity (before and after
the 90-day deadline) to serve a verified PFS, including additional time following entry of
the Order to Show Cause. Fourth, each plaintiff had an opportunity to be heard before
CASE 0:15-md-02666-JNE-DTS Doc. 3261 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 7

6
and during the December 2, 2025 hearing to either dispute or explain their non-
compliance with PTO 14 and the Order. Finally, plaintiffs were on notice that “[f]or any
case in which the plaintiff fails to serve a verified PFS and fails to demonstrate good cause
for non-compliance with PTO 14, the Court will recommend dismissal of the case with
prejudice.” Dkt. No. 2932 at 21.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS THAT: the following
40 cases be dismissed with prejudice for failing to serve a PFS or show cause why their
case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with PTO 14 ahead of the Order’s
November 3, 2025 deadline: 19-cv-01630 (Brown, John); 25-cv-01596 (Jewell, Michael);
25-cv-01601 (Collins, Sherry); 25-cv-01637 (Vierra, Michael); 25-cv-01639 (Perkins,
Linda); 25-cv-01641 (Dingman, Robert); 25-cv-01652 (Lininger, Jaydee); 25-cv-01654
(Fishel, Dean and Leona Pankrats); 25-cv-01687 (Batton, Voris); 25-cv-01765 (Baldwin,
Rosemary); 25-cv-01767 (Stroud, William); 25-cv-01773 (Dean, Michael and Jane Dean);
25-cv-01791 (Anderson, Roy); 25-cv-01802 (Iervolino, Lucille); 25-cv-01806 (Ulrich,
Tammy); 	25-cv-01809 	(Stout, 	Jesse); 	25-cv-01821 	(Crafard, 	James); 	25-cv-01827
(Black, Brenda); 25-cv-01831 (Bli, Lyn); 25-cv-01833 (Goodin, Rachel); 25-cv-01836
(Robbins, 	Thomas 	Jr.); 	25-cv-01865 	(Martino, 	Samuel); 	25-cv-01872 	(Schroeder,
Deborah); 25-cv-01877 (Vallie, Corey); 25-cv-01880 (Figg, Brenda); 25-cv-01889 (Pope,
Teresa); 25-cv-01893 (Wagner, Timothy); 25-cv-01898 (Schultz, Leo); 25-cv-01901
(Smith, Alice and Charles); 25-cv-01903 (Provost, Michael); 25-cv-01905 (Quick, Lynn);
25-cv-01922 (Keuntjes, Mark); 25-cv-01924 (Linney, Fawna); 25-cv-01979 (Lubarsky,
Jennifer); 25-cv-01998 (Craft, James); 25-cv-02259 (McClain, Carlos); 25-cv-02351
CASE 0:15-md-02666-JNE-DTS Doc. 3261 Filed 12/12/25 Page 6 of 7

7
(Choate, Ronald); 25-cv-02374 (Williams, Gary); 25-cv-02416 (Bacon, Rebecca); 25-cv-
02462 (McGill, Thomas).
Dated: December 12, 2025 	__s/ David T. Schultz______
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
U.S. Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:15-md-02666-JNE-DTS Doc. 3261 Filed 12/12/25 Page 7 of 7