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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


February 22, 2011

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

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

ORDER

This Document Relates to:

Rhonda Adair v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-10733-DRH-PMF

Isabel Arenas v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11599-DRH-PMF

Julie Bellgowan v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-10836-DRH-PMF

Heather Calderwood v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11776-DRH-PMF

Jasmine Conner v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11772-DRH-PMF

Brooke Croneberger v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11771-DRH-PMF

Deborah Flemings v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11377-DRH-PMF

Bertha Grace v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11434-DRH-PMF

Angelina Jackson v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11383-DRH-PMF

Jamila Jones v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11551-DRH-PMF

Myrna Nunez v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No.3:10-cv-12068-DRH-PMF

Michelle Ray v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11416-DRH-PMF

Ashley Robinson v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11317-DRH-PMF

Amy Sheaffer v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-10936-DRH-PMF

Belinda Sipes v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11362-DRH-PMF

Ruby Smith v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11364-DRH-PMF

Laura Thomas v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11388-DRH-PMF

Caprice White v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11385-DRH-PMF

Angela Wilhoite v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11408-DRH-PMF

Kelly Youhas v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11405-DRH-PMF

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s ("Bayer") motion, 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 were required to serve a completed PFS on or before November 15, 2010 (see Adair, 3:10-cv-10733,Doc. 5 n. 1, Doc. 5-1 and Doc. 5-2) but have not done so.*fn2

Under Section E of CMO 12, Plaintiffs were given 14 days from the date of Defendant's motion, in this case 14 days from February 4, 2011, 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.*fn3

To date, only one Plaintiff in the above captioned member actions has filed a response. On February 16, 2011, Plaintiff Laura Thomas (Thomas, 3:10- cv-11388) responded to the motion to dismiss stating that she served a completed PFS on February 14, 2011 (Thomas, 3:10-cv-11388 Doc. 7). Bayer replied on February 17, 2011 acknowledging receipt of the PFS but arguing that the PFS is not "substantially complete" as required under CMO 12 § C (Thomas, 3:10-cv- 11388 Doc. 8). Bayer provides the Court with a detailed list of deficiencies in Plaintiff Thomas's PFS submission, including but not limited to failure to answer any questions regarding family medical history, incomplete and inadequate answers to questions regarding personal medical history, and failure to produce any medical records. In light of the substantial deficiencies in Plaintiff Thomas's PFS submission, the Court finds that Plaintiff Thomas has failed to comply with her PFS obligations under CMO 12.

As to the remaining Plaintiffs in the above captioned member actions, because the Plaintiffs have failed to respond, in any way, to Bayer's allegations, the Court finds that these Plaintiffs have also failed to comply with the PFS obligations under CMO 12.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

The above captioned member actions 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

2011.02.22 18:06:02 -06'00'

David R. Herndon Chief Judge 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.