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) Marketing

March 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:

Bishop, et al., v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12271-DRH-PMF

Mangel v. Bayer HealthCare Pharms. Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11126-DRH-PMF

Dalton v. Bayer Schering Pharma A.G., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10872-DRH-PMF

Rogers v. Bayer HealthCare Pharms. Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10370-DRH-PMF

ORDER

Defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly known as Berlex, Inc., formerly known as Berlex Laboratories, Inc., on its own behalf and as successor by merger to Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation (collectively, "Bayer Defendants"), filed a motion to dismiss 32 member actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The jurisdictional issue has been resolved in 28 of the member actions and need not be addressed by the Court.*fn1

In each of the above captioned cases, however, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is still pending. The Court addresses the motions as follows:

A. Bishop, et al., v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12271-DRH-PMF

Plaintiffs' initial complaint named five Plaintiffs (Bishop Doc. 2). In their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Bishop Doc. 4), the Bayer defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because two of the Plaintiffs named in the initial complaint share citizenship with one or more of the named Bayer Defendants (Bishop Doc. 4). Specifically, the Bayer Defendants identified the following jurisdictional issues with regard to Plaintiffs' initial complaint:

x Shared Indiana Citizenship: Plaintiff Heather Bishop, who is a citizen of the State of Indiana for purposes of diversity jurisdiction (see Bishop Doc. 2 ¶ 1; Bishop Doc. 4 ¶ 9; Bishop Doc. 5 ¶ 1) shares citizenship with (1) Bayer Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana(Bishop Doc. 2 ¶ 2; Bishop Doc. 4 ¶ 14) and (2) Bayer HealthCare LLC, a limited liability company whose sole member is Bayer Corporation (Bishop Doc. 4 ¶ 15) and is therefore a citizen of Indiana for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) ("the citizenship of an LLC for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members").

x Shared New Jersey Citizenship: Plaintiff Gensei Santiago who is a citizen of New Jersey for purposes of diversity jurisdiction (Bishop Doc. 2 ¶ 1) shares citizenship with Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., a New Jersey citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction (Bishop Doc. 4 ¶ 37).

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on December 13, 2010 (Bishop Doc. 5). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Gensei Santiago is no longer a named Plaintiff This Amendment resolves the jurisdictional issue ...


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.