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 Yasminandyaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

May 22, 2013

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2100 This Document Relates to: Rhonda L. Adams
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12309-DRH-PMF Jennifer Alday
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12382-DRH-PMF Amy Baechel
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12084-DRH-PMF Jennifer S. Bessinger
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12762-DRH-PMF Michelle Coghill
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12144-DRH-PMF Chala S. Crawford
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12780-DRH-PMF Kimberly Franklin
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-l 1948-DRH-PMF Cyndel L. and Raymundo Galindo
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12237-DRH-PMF Chelsea D. Masongsong
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12635-DRH-PMF Rebecca Massey
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-l2416-DRH-PMF Tamara Morris
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13690-DRH-PMF Holly Newton
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12926-DRH-PMF Diana Olliges
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12315-DRH-PMF Mariah Smith
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12267-DRH-PMF

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE

David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District 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 April 25, 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 June 5, 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, approximately ten months 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.