The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge:
This Document Relates to:
Christina Craig, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare Pharms., Inc., et al.
Netta Jackson v. Bayer HealthCare Pharms., Inc., et al.
Krista Wilson v. Bayer HealthCare Pharms., Inc., et al.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s ("Bayer") motion to dismiss the above captioned actions without prejudice (Craig DOC. 10 at 3; Jackson DOC. 18 at 3; Wilson DOC. 10 at 3).
In each of the above captioned cases the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by Plaintiff's counsel (Craig DOC. 7 (10/29/10); Jackson DOC. 14 (9/21/10); Wilson DOC. 7 (10/18/10)). On November 24, 2010, Bayer moved to show cause why these cases should not be dismissed for Plaintiffs' failure to file a supplementary appearance in accord with Local Rule 83.1(g)(2). (Craig DOC. 8; 1 Bayer's motion and this Order apply to Plaintiff Joan Lategano only.
Jackson DOC. 16; Wilson DOC. 8). Plaintiffs did not respond to Bayer's motion to show cause. On December 10, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a supplementary appearance by December 17, 2010. (Craig DOC. 9 at 3; Jackson DOC. 17 at 3; Wilson DOC. 9 at 3). The Order provided: "If Plaintiffs fail to file an entry of appearance by this deadline, Plaintiffs' cases will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)." (Id. at 3).
To date, and in violation of the Order and Local Rule 83.1(g)(2), Plaintiffs have not filed a supplementary appearance. This is particularly problematic in light of the Plaintiff Fact Sheet concerns discussed in this Court's December 12, 2010 Order.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a complaint may be involuntarily dismissed where a Plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the rules or a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In the above captioned cases, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with this Court's Order and with local rule ...