In Re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-8-2005
In Re: Diet Drugs
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3928
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Diet Drugs " (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1043.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1043
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-3928
IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/
FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Deborah Badarzynski
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. MDL 1203)
District Judge: Hon. Harvey Bartle, III
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 6, 2005
BEFORE: AMBRO, STAPLETON and ALARCON,*
Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 8, 2005)
* Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
In order to register for benefits under the Settlement Agreement in the Diet Drug
Class Actions, appellant Deborah Badarzynski was required to return her Blue Form to
the AHP Settlement Trust (“Trust”) by May 3, 2003. She did not do this until November
21, 2003. Applying the “excusable neglect” standard set forth in Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v.
Brunswick Assoc. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380 (1993), the District Court concluded that
Badarzynski’s untimely filing was not attributable to such neglect. We find the analysis
set forth in its opinion persuasive and cannot say that the District Court abused its
discretion.1
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
1
Ms. Badarzynski had actual notice of the deadline for registration and learned ten
days before the deadline that her attorney may have failed to effectuate her registration as
she intended. She nevertheless waited over six months to advise the Trust of her desire to
register. Thus, this case is far different from In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab.
Litig., 246 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2001).
2