Rojas v. 3M Company
In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Products Liability Litigation; Margaret Rojas v. 3M Company, et al.
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:16-cv-02108
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Margaret Rojas v. 3M Company, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Rojas did not provide deposition dates.
Margaret Rojas and the defendants in her case, including 3M Company, et al. The recommendation would end this case without prejudice if adopted by the district court.
What happened
In Margaret Rojas v. 3M Company, the defendants asked to end the case because Margaret Rojas did not meet her discovery responsibilities, including providing dates for her deposition.
The court had ordered Rojas to provide dates by June 19, 2026, and warned that the case could be dismissed if she did not comply. Her lawyer said he had lost contact with her and later reported that he still could not reach her.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for failing to move it forward and for disobeying a discovery order. The recommendation was not yet a final order or judgment, and the parties could object within the time stated in the notice.
The detailed version
- Rojas v. 3M Company · No. 0:16-cv-02108
- Joan Ericksen
- Aug. 13, 2026
Background
This report and recommendation concerns Margaret Rojas’s case within the multidistrict litigation involving Bair Hugger forced-air warming products. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to move the case forward or fails to follow court rules or an order.
In May 2026, the defendants reported that Rojas had not provided deposition dates for nearly four months. The court ordered her to provide dates by June 19, 2026, and warned that it would recommend dismissal if she did not comply. Rojas did not meet that deadline. Her lawyer then reported that he had lost contact with her since April 2026. The court ordered the lawyer to try to restore contact and provide an update, but he later reported that he had been unable to reach her.
Recommendation and procedure
The court concluded that dismissal was appropriate because Rojas failed to prosecute the case, meaning she failed to move it forward, and failed to comply with a discovery order. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). “Without prejudice” means the recommendation did not bar a later refiling, although the report does not address whether any other filing limits would apply.
The document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the district court. It stated that it could not be appealed directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Under the notice, a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report, and a response to objections could be filed within 14 days after service of those objections.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.