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

June 18, 2013

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ DROSPIRENONE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2100 This Document Relates to: Angie Ancheta, et al.
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.[1] No. 3:10-cv-13246-DRH-PMF Shontay Ackerson
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10283-DRH-PMF Andrea Baginski
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12367-DRH-PMF Ashley Baker
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13883-DRH-PMF Callie M. Ball
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13875-DRH-PMF Megan Rae Berg
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11388-DRH-PMF Crystal Boroff
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13880-DRH-PMF Danielle Calabrese
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13371-DRH-PMF Denise Cudney
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10617-DRH-PMF Katie Donaldson
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10486-DRH-PMF Rochelle Dougherty
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11502-DRH-PMF Kaci Douglass
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10487-DRH-PMF Heather Gibson
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10654-DRH-PMF Kirsten Goodlett
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10610-DRH-PMF Ashley Handy
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10036- DRH-PMF Tiffany Hansley
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13195-DRH-PMF Kiona Harvey
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13330-DRH-PMF Donna and Robert Hill, Jr.
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13596-DRH-PMF Ryann Hofmann
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10299-DRH-PMF Tammy Holmes
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10515-DRH-PMF Kathy Hutchinson
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10540-DRH-PMF Mireya and Jeff Iannuzzi
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. PMF No. 3:11-cv-11100-DRH- PMF Kassandra Keeling
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10044-DRH-PMF Geneva Kenner
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10208-DRH-PMF Michelle Kielman
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13795-DRH-PMF Kara Kozaklewicz
v.
Bayer Corp., et al No. 3:11-cv-11481-DRH-PMF Carley Lockhart
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10609-DRH-PMF Melanie Lonczak
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12753-DRH-PMF Angela Lorinchak
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10972-DRH-PMF Kristen Mangino
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13358-DRH-PMF Danielle Mazur
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10255-DRH-PMF Jessica McCaslin
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10621-DRH-PMF Ashley Moore
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10023-DRH-PMF Sarah Moseley
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10454-DRH-PMF Tiffany Moses
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10536-DRH-PMF Clarissa Munoz
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10519-DRH-PMF Maggie C. Murdock
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11867-DRH-PMF Cynthia New
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10485-DRH-PMF Lauren M. Nolasco
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11928-DRH-PMF Kathleen Nold
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12795-DRH-PMF Monica Ortiz
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10418-DRH-PMF Vanessa Palomo
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10065-DRH-PMF Jessica Rios
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11008-DRH-PMF Joanne Roberts
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12965-DRH-PMF Marsha Rucker
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10270-DRH-PMF Mandy Schaible
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12793-DRH-PMF Raven L. Smith
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11637-DRH-PMF Ursula Smith
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13400-DRH-PMF Kyrsten Unger
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10210-DRH-PMF Rachel Warner
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13879-DRH-PMF Melissa Watson
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13193-DRH-PMF Michelle Whiting
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10286-DRH-PMF Heather Young
v.
Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10672-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.

On March 13, 2012, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. moved to dismiss the above captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with PFS obligations. The Court granted the motion on May 31, 2012.

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.”

On March 28, 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,

To date, none of the above captioned plaintiffs have taken any steps to cure their PFS deficiencies, to address the without prejudice dismissal, or to reply to the motion for dismissal with prejudice. 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.