UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
June 11, 2010
IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND RELEVANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ASHLEY SARRACINO PLAINTIFF
BAYER PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION ET AL., DEFENDANTS
EVELYN WASSON PLAINTIFF
BAYER PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
MDL No. 2100
Judge David R. Herndon
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ashley Sarracino's motion requesting refund of filing fees in member action 3:10-cv-11041 (3:10-cv-11041 Doc. 4). Plaintiff Sarracino's case was opened on June 8, 2010 (3:10-cv-11041 Doc. 1). On June 9, 2010 Plaintiff Sarracino filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) (3:10-cv-11041 Doc. 3). Plaintiff Sarracino's counsel of record, Elizabeth Dudley, reports that her credit card was erroneously charged twice. Plaintiff Sarracino is requesting that the Court (1) Refund the duplicate filing fee and (2) refund the original filing fee because the case was mistakenly filed in this Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"). The Court addresses each matter in turn below.
Duplicate Filing Fee
Upon review of the relevant records, the Court finds that a duplicate filing fee was not charged in Plaintiff Sarracino's case (one filing fee was charged - receipt 0754-1132193 in the amount of $350.00). However, Plaintiff Sarracino's counsel filed a second member action, 3:10-cv-11043, in this MDL on June 8, 2010 (3:10-cv-11043 Doc. 1). The records indicate that a duplicate filing fee was erroneously assessed in member action 3:10-cv-11043 (two filing fees were charged - receipt 0754-1132543 in the amount of $350.00 and receipt 0754-1132554 in the amount of $350.00). Accordingly, pursuant to Administrative Order 116, the Court directs the Clerk to refund the duplicate filing fee ($350.00) charged to counsel's account in member action 3:10-cv-11043.
Plaintiff Sarracino also requests that the Court refund the filing fee in her action because she mistakenly filed the case in this MDL and has since filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The Court will not grant Plaintiff Sarracino's request for a refund of this $350.00 filing fee; Plaintiff Sarracino has not cited, and the Court has not discovered, any authority that would permit such a refund.
Accordingly, upon consideration of Plaintiff Sarracino's motion the Court finds as follows:
Plaintiff Sarracino's motion for refund of filing fees in member action 3:10-cv-11041 is DENIED.
The Court, pursuant to Administrative Order 116, sua sponte directs the Clerk to refund the duplicate filing fee of $350.00 charged in member action 3:10-cv-11043.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.