Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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, S.D. Illinois

August 24, 2016

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ DROSPIRENONE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2100 This Document Relates to: Heather Bishop, et al.
v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10942-DRH-PMF Paula Bruno, et al.
v.
Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-11521-DRH-PMF Carmaletia L. Cruz, et al.
v.
Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al. No. 3:10-cv-12481-DRH-PMF Jennifer Cruz
v.
Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-20161-DRH-PMF Keli Chase Mbaye
v.
Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:10-cv-20269-DRH-PMF Donna Shirley
v.
Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:09-cv-10119-DRH-PMF

          ORDER

          HERNDON, District Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Bayer's motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 76 (“CMO 76”) for an order dismissing the above captioned plaintiffs with prejudice for failure to submit a complete Claim Package as required under Section 5.02(A) of the Settlement Agreement. None of the above captioned plaintiffs has responded to the motion. Accordingly, the Court accepts as true the allegations in the pending motion to dismiss. Based on the record and the following, the motion to dismiss, as to each of the above captioned plaintiffs, is GRANTED.

         In August 2015, Bayer and a committee of plaintiffs' counsel appointed by this Court in cooperation with the state court judges in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California coordinated proceedings negotiated a Settlement Agreement to resolve claims involving alleged arterial thromboembolism (“ATE”) injuries (“ATE Resolution Program”). On August 3, 2016, the Court entered Case Management Order 76 (“CMO 76”), the ATE Settlement Implementation Order (MDL 2100 Doc. 3786).

         The Settlement Agreement set forth the timing and procedure for Claimants to opt in to the ATE Resolution Program. Specifically, each Claimant wishing to opt in to the program was required to submit an Opt-In Form, which was attached to CMO 76 as Exhibit B. The Opt-In Form specifically provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) The Claimant agrees to be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (2) the Claimant acknowledges that the Claimant will not be eligible for an award and the Claimant's case (if one is filed) will be dismissed with prejudice if the Claimant does not submit a timely and complete Claim Package; (3) the Claimant makes certain acknowledgements with regard to the authority of the Special Master; and (4) the Claimant acknowledges the election to opt in to the settlement is irrevocable.

         The Claim Package requirements, including applicable deadlines, are set forth in Section 5.02(A) of the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A to CMO 76). Pursuant to Section 5.02(a), Claimants were required to submit a Claim Form, Claimant Authorization, Release, Stipulation of Dismissal, W-9, Wiring Instructions, and Prescription, Medical, and Event Records. Section 5.02(F) of the Settlement Agreement entitles Defendants to make a motion to dismiss Program Participants' cases with prejudice who fail to timely submit their Claim Package.

         As outlined in Bayer's motion, each of the above captioned plaintiffs: (1) enrolled in the ATE Resolution Program; (2) failed to submit a complete Claim Package by the Claim Package Deadline; (3) received a Notice of Incomplete Claim from the Claims Administrator (per Section 5.02(H), informing Claimant that her Claim Package was incomplete and instructing the Claimant to cure the deficiency or seek relief prior to the deadline indicated in the Notice); (4) failed to cure the Claim Package deficiency; and (5) received a notice from the Claims Administrator informing the Claimant that she did not qualify for an award.[5]

         Accordingly, Bayer moves to dismiss the above captioned plaintiffs' claims, with prejudice, pursuant to Section 5.02(F) of the Settlement Agreement.

         The Court finds that the above captioned plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms thereof, the above captioned plaintiffs' cases are subject to dismissal with prejudice.

         The claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. As to each of the above captioned actions, this order of dismissal closes the case.[6] Further, the Court DIRECTS the CLERK OF THE COURT to ENTER JUDGMENT in each of the above captioned actions.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] This order applies to only plaintiff Tia Maxie.

[2] This order applies to only plaintiff Paula ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.