The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
This Document Relates to:
Rebecca Bach v. No. 3:10-cv-13149-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Sarah Blagg v. No. 3:10-cv-13192-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Melissa Carli-Walton and Leo Walton v. No. 3:10-cv-11571-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Carmaletia L. Cruz, et al. v. No. 3:10-cv-12481-DRH-PMF Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp., et al.*fn1 Lindsey Davis v. No. 3:10-cv-12778-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Diana Elkins v. No. 3:10-cv-12934-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Carissa Funk v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12453-DRH-PMF Alesia Goff-Thomas and Andy Thomas v. No. 3:10-cv-12367-DRH-PMF Bayer Schering Pharma AG, et al. Natasha Hartsell v. No. 3:10-cv-11655-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Paulette Monica v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11790-DRH-PMF Rebecca Orr v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11636-DRH-PMF Kimberly S. Ray v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-20089-DRH-PMF Glenda Taylor v. No. 3:10-cv-12947-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Jill Whitehouse v. No. 3:10-cv-11639-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court on defendant Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s ("Bayer") motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 ("CMO 12"),*fn2 for an Order dismissing plaintiffs' claims in the above-captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with their Plaintiff Fact Sheet ("PFS") obligations.*fn3
Under Section C of CMO 12, each Plaintiff is required to serve Defendants with a completed PFS, including a signed Declaration, executed record release Authorizations, and copies of all documents subject to the requests for production contained in the PFS which are in the possession of Plaintiff.
Section B of CMO 12 further provides that a completed PFS is due "45 days from the date of service of the first answer to her Complaint or the docketing of her case in this MDL, or 45 days from the date of this Order, whichever is later."
Accordingly, plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters were to have served completed PFSs on or before August 5, 2011. See Exhibit A to Bach 3:10- cv-13149 Doc. 6.*fn4 Per Section E of CMO 12, Notice of Overdue Discovery was sent on or before August 26, 2011. See Exhibit B to Bach 3:10-cv-13149 Doc. 6.
As of today's date, Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters still have not served completed PFSs. Plaintiffs' completed PFSs are thus more than one month overdue.
Under Section E of CMO 12, plaintiffs were given 14 days from the date of Bayer's motion, in this case 14 days from September 27, 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.*fn5
To date, none of the plaintiffs in the above captioned member actions has filed a response. Because the Plaintiffs in the above captioned cases have failed to respond to Bayer's allegations, the Court finds that these plaintiffs have failed to comply with their PFS obligations under CMO 12. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
x The above captioned member actions are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 12.
x 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 ...