Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING v. Bayer Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


November 29, 2010

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
SISEMORE
v.
BAYER CORP., ET AL.
DUNNAGAN
v.
BAYER CORP., ET AL.
HENSLEY
v.
BAYER CORP., ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge:

ORDER

This Document Relates to:

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s ("Bayer") motions, pursuant to Case Management Order 12

("CMO 12"), for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims in the above-captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with their Plaintiff Fact Sheet ("PFS") obligations.*fn1 Bayer contends that the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters have not served substantially complete PFSs and are therefore delinquent pursuant to CMO 12.

Under Section E of CMO 12, Plaintiffs were given 14 days from the date of Defendant's motion to file a response either certifying that they served upon Defendants and Defendants received a completed PFS, and attaching appropriate documentation of receipt or an opposition to Defendant's motion.

With regard to the motion to dismiss filed in Hensley v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-20251 (Doc. 14), Bayer has withdrawn its motion to dismiss stating that Plaintiff has complied with her PFS requirements (Doc. 15).

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED as MOOT.

With regard to the motions to dismiss filed in Sisemore v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:09-cv-10096 (Doc. 31) and Dunnagan v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-20029 (Doc. 16), the Plaintiffs have failed to file any response.

Because Plaintiffs Sisemore and Dunnagan have failed to respond, in any way, to Bayer's allegations that the submitted PFSs are not substantially complete, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Sisemore and Dunnagan have failed to comply with the requirements of CMO 12 and therefore Bayers motions to dismiss are GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Court hereby Orders as follows:

1. The motion to dismiss filed inHensley v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-20251 (Doc. 14) is DENIED as MOOT.

2. The motions to dismiss in Sisemore v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:09-cv-10096 (Doc. 31) and Dunnagan v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-20029 (Doc.

16) are GRANTED: Sisemore v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:09-cv-10096 and Dunnagan v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-20029 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 12.

Further, the Court reminds Plaintiffs that, pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless Plaintiffs serve Defendants with a completed PFS or move to vacate the dismissal without prejudice within 60 days after entry of this Order, the Order will be converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon Defendants' motion.

SO ORDERED

David R. Herndon 2010.11.29 15:13:01 -06'00'

Chief Judge Date: November 29, 2010 United States District Court


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.