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)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


December 3, 2012

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

This Document Relates to:

Shivanthi Ahendran v. No. 3:12-cv-10573-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

Heather Auxier v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10530-DRH-PMF Kirsti Bryson v. No. 3:12-cv-10113-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Jeneen Cox v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13670-DRH-PMF Ashley Dawson v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10527-DRH-PMF Gina Durfee v. No. 3:12-cv-10148-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Aurora Feagans, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al.*fn1 No. 3:12-cv-10705-DRH-PMF Sarah Gross v. No. 3:12-cv-20092-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Janet Hunsinger v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10160-DRH-PMF Tamika Johnson, et al. v. Bayer Pharma No. 3:12-cv-10141-DRH-PMF AG, et al.*fn2

Breanna Jurgens, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al.*fn3 No. 3:12-cv-10526-DRH-PMF Susan Lamb, et al. v. Bayer Pharma AG, et al.*fn4 No. 3:12-cv-10164-DRH-PMF Shaeleshni Lata v. No. 3:12-cv-10014-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Lee Ann Michaud, et al. v. Bayer No. 3:12-cv-10165-DRH-PMF Pharma AG, et al.*fn5 Jamie Milligan, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al.*fn6 No. 3:12-cv-10699-DRH-PMF Latisha Morrell v. No. 3:12-cv-10470-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Davona Sanders, et al. v. Bayer No. 3:12-cv-10163-DRH-PMF Pharma AG, et al.*fn7 Lakisha Tutton, et al. v. Bayer No. 3:12-cv-10133-DRH-PMF Pharma AG, et al.*fn8

BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on the Bayer defendants' motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 ("CMO 12")*fn9 for an order of dismissal, without prejudice, of the plaintiffs' claims in the above captioned cases for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet ("PFS") obligations.*fn10

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, the plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters were to have served completed PFSs on or before August 5, 2012. (See e.g., Ahendran No. 3:12-cv-10573-DRH-PMF Doc. 8-1).*fn11 Per Section E of CMO *fn12 , Notice of Overdue Discovery was sent on or before August 27, 2012. (See e.g., Ahendran No. 3:12-cv-10573-DRH-PMF Doc. 8-2).12 As of the filing of Bayer's motion to dismiss, Bayer still had not received completed PFS materials from the plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters. As of the filing of this order, the above captioned plaintiffs' PFS materials are more than three months overdue.

Under Section E of CMO 12, the plaintiffs were given 14 days from the date of Bayer's motion, in this case 14 days from September 26, 2012, 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.*fn13

To date, none of the subject plaintiffs has filed a response. Because the plaintiffs 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 claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are hereby dismissed without prejudice.

The Court reminds plaintiffs that, pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless the plaintiffs serve the 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:

Digitally signed by

Date: 2012.12.03 15:28:29 -06'00'


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.