BENTON – Asbestos attorney John Simmons of Alton broke the ranks of Illinois asbestos lawyers by dropping out of a suit at U.S. district court and agreeing to file client questionnaires for a bankruptcy judge in North Carolina.
The Gori firm in Edwardsville, Maune Raichle in St. Louis, and Cooney and Conway in Chicago continue to resist questionnaires.
U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle plans a hearing for them on July 23.
First the firms must face bankruptcy judge Laura Beyer of Charlotte, who ordered them to show why she shouldn’t hold them in contempt.
She plans a hearing on July 22.
Beyer presides over the bankruptcy of Bestwall, an entity that Georgia-Pacific created to resolve its asbestos liabilities.
Bestwall suspects it overpaid some plaintiffs who alleged exposure to Georgia-Pacific products in civil courts and denied it in bankruptcy trusts.
In March, Beyer found Bestwall needed questionnaires in order to determine whether past settlements reflected actual value.
She ordered about 800 firms to fill out questionnaires, stating at a hearing that she didn’t think they wanted clients filling them out.
She required anyone seeking relief from any provision of the order to do so by motion in her court.
She set a July 26 deadline.
District Judge Robert Conrad denied an appeal of her order.
The four Illinois firms wanted what Beyer thought they wouldn’t want, a subpoena for every questionnaire.
They retained former U.S. magistrate judge Stephen Williams, who filed suit for 13 clients of the firms on June 21.
Former U.S. district judge Patrick Murphy entered an appearance on June 22, and moved for a preliminary injunction and an emergency hearing.
Bestwall responded in Charlotte on June 23, with an emergency motion for Beyer to enforce her order and hold the firms in contempt.
Bestwall counsel Garland Cassada claimed three of the firms appeared before her and made the same arguments they now press in Illinois.
Cassada wrote that the Illinois firms represent hundreds of pending mesothelioma claimants against Bestwall.
“The Illinois lawsuit does not explain why only 13 of those claimants are included in this lawsuit,” he wrote.
“The debtor believes the Illinois lawsuit may be intended as a test case that the Illinois law firms and perhaps other law firms would then invoke to avoid answering questionnaires for all of their hundreds of clients.”
He wrote that plaintiffs claimed venue was proper in Southern Illinois because a motion to quash would have been filed there if Beyer had ordered subpoenas.
“This, of course, did not happen,” he wrote.
He expressed concern that Bestwall had received 19 questionnaires to date when its database contained more than 5,000 pending claimants.
He separately alleged that the Illinois suit violated the automatic stay that bankruptcy courts impose on civil litigation.
He offered to withdraw the motion if the firms would dismiss the Illinois suit and confirm that they will comply with Beyer’s order.
Simmons took the offer.
On June 28, Williams filed notice of voluntary dismissal for plaintiffs Terri Martinek and William Quigley.
He filed notice for Judy Bogner on July 2, and for Wilda Carden on July 6.
He didn’t explain but Beyer explained on July 9, when she granted Bestwall’s motion to enforce her order.
“The debtor withdrew their motion with respect to Simmons Hanly Conroy after the Simmons claimants dismissed their action in the Southern District of Illinois and agreed to comply with the personal injury questionnaire order according to its terms,” Beyer wrote.
Then she dealt firmly with the Gori firm, Maune Raichle, and Cooney and Conway.
Beyer wrote that it appeared to her that they had opportunities to present objections to the questionnaire at numerous hearings.
She wrote that it also appeared that they were bound by her order.
“It appears that the Illinois claimants and at least Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French and Mudd, LLC violated the terms of this court’s personal injury questionnaire order by filing a lawsuit against the debtor in the Southern District of Illinois rather than seeking relief from the order by motion in this court,” she wrote.
She ordered them to show why she shouldn’t hold them in contempt for violating the order and sanction them for violating the automatic stay.
She set a July 14 deadline for the firms to respond to Bestwall’s contempt motion and a July 19 deadline for Bestwall to reply.