Tettamanti v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/25/2010. (dsw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS _________________________________________ ) IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) ) 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND ) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ) MDL No. 2100 ____________________________________ ) This Document Relates to: ____________________________________ This Document Relates to: Bateman v. Bayer Corp., et al. Bremme v. Bayer Corp., et al. Brosch v. Bayer Corp., et al. Cottman v. Bayer Corp., et al. Driver v. Bayer Corp., et al. Holben v. Bayer Corp., et al. Johnson v. Bayer HealthCare Pharms., Inc., et al. Losse v. Bayer Corp., et al. McGarry v. Bayer Corp., et al. Mendicino v. Bayer Corp., et al. Merrell v. Bayer Corp., et al. Minardo v. Bayer Corp., et al. Panas v. Bayer Corp., et al. Reidenbaker v. Bayer Corp., et al. Richerson v. Bayer Corp., et al. Case No. 3:10-cv-10042 Case No. 3:10-cv-10040 Case No. 3:09-cv-10151 Case No. 3:09-cv-10172 Case No. 3:09-cv-10035 Case No. 3:09-cv-10073 Case No. 3:10-cv-20006 Case No. 3:10-cv-10025 Case No. 3:09-cv-10161 Case No. 3:09-cv-10198 Case No. 3:09-cv-10112 Case No. 3:09-cv-10184 Case No. 3:09-cv-10228 Case No. 3:09-cv-10069 Case No. 3:09-cv-10121

Rodriguez v. Bayer Corp., et al. Sams v. Bayer Corp., et al. Shaffer v. Bayer Corp., et al. Suydam v. Bayer Corp., et al. Taylor v. Bayer Corp., et al. Tettamanti v. Bayer Corp., et al. Zuhr v. Bayer Corp., et al. ORDER

Case No. 3:10-cv-10015 Case No. 3:09-cv-10067 Case No. 3:09-cv-10168 Case No. 3:09-cv-10141 Case No. 3:09-cv-10065 Case No. 3:09-cv-10186 Case No. 3:09-cv-10102

On March 8, 2010, the Bayer Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in each of the above listed cases (total of 22 member actions). The basis for the motions was that, in each case, there existed one or more non-diverse defendants. As is explained below, the jurisdictional issue pertaining to these member actions has been resolved in all but two cases: The Plaintiffs in 19 of the 22 member actions have dismissed the non-diverse defendant or non-diverse defendants and have filed amended complaints reflecting this revision. Thus, pursuant to the operative amended complaints, diversity jurisdiction now exists in the following member actions. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 3:10-cv-10025 3:09-cv-10069 3:09-cv-10121 3:10-cv-10015 3:09-cv-10168 3:10-cv-10042 3:09-cv-10035 3:09-cv-10067 3:09-cv-10168 3:09-cv-10065

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

3:10-cv-20006 3:10-cv-10040 3:09-cv-10151 3:09-cv-10172 3:09-cv-10073 3:09-cv-10161 3:09-cv-10198 3:09-cv-10184 3:09-cv-10141

As to member action 3:09-cv-10228 Plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal and the case has been closed. As to the remaining two member actions, each Plaintiff shares citizenship with at least one defendant. In member action 3:09-cv-10112, the Plaintiff and Defendant Bayer Healthcare LLC are both citizens of Indiana. In member action 3:09-cv-10102, the Plaintiff and Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. are both citizens of Delaware. Because the Plaintiffs in these member actions share citizenship with a named Defendant, this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction and Plaintiffs' actions must be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: The Bayer Defendants motions for dismissal in the following member actions are denied as moot: 3:10-cv-10025 3:09-cv-10069 3:09-cv-10121 3:10-cv-10015 3:09-cv-10168 3:10-cv-10042 3:09-cv-10035 3:09-cv-10067 3:09-cv-10168

3:09-cv-10065 3:10-cv-20006 3:10-cv-10040 3:09-cv-10151 3:09-cv-10172 3:09-cv-10073 3:09-cv-10161 3:09-cv-10198 3:09-cv-10184 3:09-cv-10141 3:09-cv-10228 (voluntarily dismissed) The Bayer Defendants motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in member actions 3:09-cv-10102 and 3:09-cv-10112 are granted. SO ORDERED:

/s/ DavidRHerndon

Chief Judge United States District Court

DATE: June 25, 2010