Legal Opinion

In Re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided February 18, 2004No. 02-4613, 02-4616, 03-1006UnpublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge.

Class members who had previously settled their mass tort class actions appeal the District Court’s Pretrial Order No. 2663 (PTO 2663) suspending claim processing deadlines contained in a court-approved settlement agreement. Because we conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion, we affirm.

I. Factual Background

The original class action involved two diet drugs of American Home Products Corporation (“AHP”), 1 Pondimin and Re-dux (fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, respectively). Approximately four million people took Pondimin and two million took Redux…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. Radio Station Wow, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  4. Finberg v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
  5. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw v. Mack Trucks, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection AgencyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
  2. FRANKEL v. KESSLERDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API