IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2100 This Document Relates to: KIMBERLY BYRD, et al., Plaintiffs,
BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and BAYER PHARMA AG, Defendants. Civil No. 3:11-cv-12890-DRH-PMF
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF FACT SHEET MATTERS
David R. Herndon, Chief Judge United States District Court.
This matter is before the Court for case management. The following three motions are pending in the above captioned matter: (1) Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Bayer”) motion to convert the Court’s without prejudice Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) dismissal into a with prejudice PFS dismissal (Doc. 26); (2) the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond Bayer’s motion for a with prejudice dismissal (Doc. 27); and (3) the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the Court’s order of dismissal without prejudice as to certain plaintiffs (Doc. 29).
For the reasons discussed below, the motion to vacate the Court’s order of dismissal without prejudice as to certain plaintiffs (Doc. 29) is GRANTED. The motion to dismiss with prejudice (Doc. 26) has been WITHDRAWN (Doc. 28). Therefore, the motion to dismiss with prejudice (Doc. 26) and the plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to respond thereto (Doc. 27) are DENIED as MOOT.
A. Without Prejudice Dismissal of Certain Plaintiffs’ Claims
The above captioned matter was opened on September 14, 2011. At the time of filing, the case included 93 plaintiffs. On February 9, 2012, Bayer filed a motion to dismiss 53 of the 93 plaintiffs, without prejudice, for failure to comply with the PFS requirements (Doc. 4). The plaintiffs did not file a responsive pleading and on March 1, 2012, the Court granted Bayer’s motion to dismiss as to 53 of the 93 plaintiffs (Doc. 5).
B. The Plaintiffs’ Initial Handling of the 53 PFS Dismissals
1. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel Submitted Completed PFSs for 17 of the 53 Dismissed Plaintiffs.
In April 2012, counsel for the plaintiffs filed motions to vacate the order of dismissal as to 17 of the 53 dismissed plaintiffs. The motions stated the subject plaintiffs had completed their PFS requirements (Doc. 7, Doc. 9). In May and June 2012, the Court granted the motions to vacate and reinstated the claims of these 17 plaintiffs (Doc. 15, Doc. 20).
2. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel Sought a Deadline Extension for 20 of the 53 Dismissed Plaintiffs
In April 2012, counsel for the plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time as to 20 of the 53 dismissed plaintiffs (Doc. 10). The motion for extension asked the Court to stay the enforcement of the “with prejudice” provision of CMO 12 (MDL 2100 Doc. 836 Section E.1) for an additional 90 days (Doc. 10; Doc. 11). The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time (Doc. 13).
The extension stayed the enforcement of the “with prejudice” provision of CMO 12 for an additional 90 days (MDL 2100 Doc. 836 Section E.1). Specifically, the Court gave the subject plaintiffs until July 30, 2012 to complete their PFS requirements (Doc. 18). The Court explained that the extension did not vacate the order of dismissal and did not reinstate the subject plaintiffs’ claims (Doc. 18). Rather, it gave the plaintiffs 150 days (as opposed to 60 days) to comply with their PFS requirements prior to being subject to a with prejudice dismissal upon the defendants’ motion (Doc. 18). The Court expressly noted that if the subject plaintiffs failed ...