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 Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

May 20, 2013

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ DROSPIRENONE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2100 This Document Relates to: Kara Abbott
v.
Bayer Corp, et al. No. 3:11-cv-13122-DRH-PMF Melissa Aiger
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13294-DRH-PMF Emily Blevins
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13011-DRH-PMF Shaina Collins
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13108-DRH-PMF Andrea Hollowell
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13229-DRH-PMF Melissa Johnson
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11996-DRH-PMF Elizabeth Law
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13240-DRH-PMF Karan and Ruy Lozano
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13205-DRH-PMF Marissa Lytle
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12586-DRH-PMF Marilou Mewborn
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13274-DRH-PMF Amy and Brian Monroe
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13238-DRH-PMF Sharon Morrison
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12706-DRH-PMF Heather Norris
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13241-DRH-PMF Amanda and Robert Perkins
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13230-DRH-PMF Rhanda Smith
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12090-DRH-PMF Laura Tenorio
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-20002-DRH-PMF Karen Wafa
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13203-DRH-PMF Tina Westmoreland
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13239-DRH-PMF Rukaiyah Williams
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13287-DRH-PMF

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE

David R. Herndon, Chief Judge United States Distrtict Court

This matter is before the Court on the defendant Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 (“CMO 12”), for an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, in the above-captioned matters, with prejudice for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) obligations.[1]

On June 29, 2012, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. moved to dismiss the above captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with PFS obligations.[2] The Court granted the motion on August 20, 2012.[3]

In the order dismissing the above captioned actions, the Court warned the 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.”[4]

On March 27, 2013, more than 60 days after the entry of the order of dismissal without prejudice, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed the subject motion stating the plaintiffs are still not in compliance with their PFS obligations and asking the Court to convert the dismissals to dismissals with prejudice pursuant to Section E of CMO 12,

The Court notes that, pursuant to Section E of CMO 12, “[u]nless Plaintiff has served Defendants with a completed PFS or has moved to vacate the dismissal without prejudice within 60 days after entry of any such Order of Dismissal without Prejudice, the order will be converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon Defendants’ motion.” (MDL 2100 Doc. 836) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court could have immediately converted the above captioned dismissals to dismissals with prejudice on March 27, 2013, the day Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed the subject motion. More than 30 days have passed since Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s motion was filed. Thus, the plaintiffs have had ample time to cure the any PFS deficiencies and avoid a with prejudice dismissal.

Having considered the motion and the relevant provisions of CMO 12 the Court ORDERS as follows:

The plaintiffs in the above captioned actions have failed to comply with their obligations pursuant to CMO 12 and more than 60 days have passed since the entry of the order of dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 12. Accordingly, pursuant to Section E of CMO 12, the plaintiffs’ complaints are hereby dismissed WITH prejudice.

Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same.

SO ORDERED.


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.