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

January 15, 2014

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 3:11-cv-12744-DRH-PMF Christy Keeton This Document Relates to Kari Slankster
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 3:10-cv-11960-DRH-PMF

ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Bayer's motions to show cause why the claims of the above captioned plaintiffs should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the document preservation requirements in Case Management Order Number 61 ("CMO 61") (Doc. 2740). Specifically, Bayer's motions to show cause relate to the subject plaintiffs' alleged failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 61 § I.D.[1] Bayer's motions to show cause seek dismissal of the subject plaintiffs' claims in accord with the provisions of Section I.E. of CMO 61.[2]

Pursuant to Section I.E. of CMO 61, each plaintiff had 30 days to respond to Bayer's motion to show cause. In both cases, plaintiffs' counsel filed motions to withdraw as counsel of record after Bayer filed the subject motions ( Slankster Doc. 10; Keeton Doc. 13). The Court granted the motions to withdraw ( Slankster Doc. 11; Keeton Doc. 14). The orders granting the motions to withdraw extended the plaintiffs' responsive pleading time and stated as follows:

In light of the plaintiff's need to obtain new counsel, the Court will extend the plaintiff's responsive pleading deadline. The plaintiff, or her new counsel, is given 60 days from the date this order is entered to file a responsive pleading to the pending motion to show cause (Doc. 10). If plaintiff or her new counsel fail to file a response to the pending motion to show cause, her case will be subject to dismissal WITH PREJUDICE in accord with the provisions of CMO 61.

( Slankster Doc. 11).

In light of the plaintiffs need to obtain new counsel, the Court will extend the plaintiffs responsive pleading deadline. The plaintiff, or her new counsel, is given 60 days from the date this order is entered to file a responsive pleading to the pending motion to show cause (Doc. 10). If plaintiff or her new counsel fail to file a response to the pending motion to show cause, her case will be subject to dismissal WITH PREJUDICE in accord with the provisions of CMO 61.

( Keeton Doc. 14)

Neither plaintiff filed any such response. At the expiration of the responsive pleading time, the motions were considered by Special Master Stephen Saltzburg.[3] Special Master Saltzburg reviewed the pleadings and the requirements of CMO 61 and filed a report and recommendation regarding each motion to show cause ( Slankster Doc. 12; Keeton Doc. 15). In each case, Special Master Saltzburg found that the subject plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of CMO 61 and recommended that the subject plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice in accord with the requirements of CMO 61.

The parties were given 14 days to respond or object to Special Master Saltzburg's report and recommendation. In each case, the 14 day deadline for responding or objecting to the Special Master's report has expired. Neither plaintiff has responded or objected in any way.

Upon consideration of Bayer's motions to dismiss, the Special Master's recommendations, and the requirements of CMO 61, the Court finds that each subject plaintiff has failed to comply with Section I.D. CMO 61. Therefore, the above captioned plaintiffs' claims are subject to with prejudice dismissal (see section I.E. of CMO 61).

Specifically, with regard to each of the above captioned plaintiffs, the Court finds as follows:

Kari Slankster v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 3:11-cv-12744-DRH-PMF

The plaintiff failed to comply with § I.D. CMO 61. The Court adopts Special Master Saltzburg's report and recommendation as to this plaintiff. The plaintiff's claims are therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 61.

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

Christy Keeton v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 3:10-cv-11960-DRH-PMF

The plaintiff failed to comply with § I.D. CMO 61. The Court adopts Special Master Saltzburg's report and recommendation as to this plaintiff. The plaintiff's claims are therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 61.

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.