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 Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois

March 27, 2015

IN RE PRADAXA (DABIGATRAN ETEXILATE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Document Relates to: Richard Brown, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Cecelia Brown vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-50399 Claudie Kennimer vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51721 Lorraine Kincaid vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51719 Everett J. Van Dright vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-50015 Michael R. Moragne vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-50433 William Martin vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Civil Action No.: 3:12-cv-50016 James Pettas vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Civil Action No.: 3:13-cv-51229 Jean M. Chakanovsky vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-50308 Thomas J. Eilers, Individually and as representative of the estate of Opal F. Eilers, Deceased vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-50280 Billy Roden vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-50299 Cologero Frank

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendants' (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Boehringher Ingelheim International) motions to dismiss the above captioned actions with prejudice pursuant to the Pradaxa Product Liability Litigation Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA"). None of the above captioned plaintiffs has responded to the motions. Accordingly, the Court accepts as true the allegations in defendants' motions. For the reasons discussed herein, the motions are GRANTED.

Defendants and the Pradaxa Claimants' Negotiating Counsel executed the Master Settlement Agreement on May 28, 2014. The MSA sets forth the timing and procedure for Pradaxa Claimants to opt in to the voluntary settlement program. Specifically, each Pradaxa Claimant wishing to opt in to the settlement was required to submit an Opt-In Form, which was attached to the MSA as Exhibit 5. The Opt-In Form specifically provides that the election to opt in to the settlement is irrevocable and that the Claimant is waiving all rights to pursue his or her claims in court. Each of the above captioned plaintiffs submitted a timely Opt-In Form.

The MSA also required that within thirty days of opting into the settlement each Participating Claimant shall post to the Claims Administrator's secure portal a "Claim Package Submission" containing specified materials. The parties to the MSA intended strict compliance with its terms, with non-compliance resulting in the Claimant being unable to participate in the settlement and dismissal with prejudice of any pending lawsuit. MSA ¶ 7.6 and ¶ 7.9.

The MSA also permits the Claims Administrator to review the Claim Packages for completeness and to issue deficiency notices when a Claimant does not submit a complete Claim Package. MSA at ¶ 7.8. Upon receipt of a Notice of Incomplete Claim, a Claimant has thirty days to cure any deficiencies. Id. If a Claimant with a pending lawsuit fails to timely cure the defects identified in the Notice of Incomplete Claim, the MSA specifically provides that the Defendant may move to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and that the expectations of the parties is that such a motion would be granted, absent a showing of good cause that justifies the failure to cure. Id . at ¶ 7.9.

As outlined in the defendants' motion, each of the above captioned plaintiffs: (1) filed a lawsuit in this MDL; (2) opted in to the settlement; (3) were sent a Notice of Incomplete Claim; and (4) failed to timely cure the deficiencies within the required time period. Further, as previously noted, none of the above captioned plaintiffs has responded to the pending motions to dismiss.

The Court finds that the above captioned plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of the MSA. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms thereof, the above captioned plaintiff's cases are subject to dismissal with prejudcie.

The claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDCIE.

The Court DIRECTS the CLERK OF THE COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.


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.