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


March 11, 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:

Vonnie McDonald v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12151-DRH-PMF

Lakisha Simon v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11714-DRH-PMF

Sonya M. Varney v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11562-DRH-PMF

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s ("Bayer") motion to dismiss the above captioned actions without prejudice. To date, Plaintiffs have not responded to Bayer's motion.

In each of the above-captioned matters, the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by Plaintiff's counsel. (McDonald DOC. 8 (1/14/11); Simon DOC. 8 (1/11/11); Varney DOC. 10 (1/11/11)). After Plaintiffs did not file the supplementary appearance required by the Order granting withdrawal and Local Rule 83.1(g)(2), Bayer moved to show cause why these claims should not be dismissed on February 7, 2011. (McDonald DOC. 9; Simon DOC. 9; Varney DOC. 11). On February 23, 2011, the Court gave Plaintiffs "one final opportunity to demonstrate some interest in the further prosecution of their claims." The Order provided that, if Plaintiffs did not file an entry of appearance by March 2, 2011, then "Plaintiffs' cases will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)." (McDonald DOC. 10 at 2; Simon DOC. 10 at 2; Varney DOC. 12 2at 2). 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 raised by Bayer and discussed by this Court in previous orders.

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 83.1(g). Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the above captioned actions are hereby dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

2011.03.11 16:28:21 -06'00'

20110311

© 1992-2014 VersusLaw Inc.



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.