Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

In Re: Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone)

December 28, 2010

IN RE: YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE)
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION



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

This Document Relates to:

Patton v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-10267-DRH-PMF

Malik v. Bayer Corporation et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11251-DRH-PMF

Dudziak v. Bayer Corporation, et al.,

No. 3:10-cv-13042-DRH-PMF

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on motions filed in the above captioned actions. Having considered the motions and the relevant rules of law the Court ORDERS as follows:

I. Patton v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10267-DRH-PMF

The law firm Milberg LLP and Jeffrey R. Messinger ("Movants"), move for leave to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Chasity Patton (Doc. 16). Another attorney is not being substituted.

After considering Movants' motion the Court finds that the requirements of Local Rule 83.1(g) have not been satisfied. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(g), Movants were required to notify Plaintiff regarding the motion to withdraw at her last known residential address via personal service or certified mail. Movants' motion to withdraw and notice of withdraw do not indicate that such notice was provided. Further, Movants have failed to provide Plaintiff's last known address as required by Local Rule 83.1(g). Accordingly, Movants' motion to withdraw as counsel of record is DENIED. Movants may re-file a motion to withdraw as counsel of record that complies with the requirements of Local Rule 83.1(g).

II. Malik v. Bayer Corporation et al. No. 3:10-cv-11251-DRH-PMF

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to dismiss her action without prejudice pursuant to "Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)" (Doc. 4). In the instant case, no answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court treats Plaintiff's motion as a notice of voluntary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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