Walton v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 21

ORDER in case 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF; denying (15) Motion to Strike in case 3:09-cv-10217-DRH-PMF. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 01/08/2010. Associated Cases: 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF, 3:09-cv-10217-DRH-PMF(dsw, )

Download PDF
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: __________________________________________ CATHY M. WALTON, Plaintiff, v. BAYER CORPORATION, BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, BAYER PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., BERLEX LABORATORIES, INC., BERLEX, INC., JOHN DOE MANUFACTURERS A-Z, NIEMAN FOODS, INC., JOHN DOE DISTRIBUTORS A-Z, Defendants ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER HERNDON, Chief Judge: Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (3:09-cv-10217, Doc. 15) Defendants' Supplement (3:09-cv-10217, Doc. 12) to Notice of Removal (3:09-cv10217). Defendants failed to include a copy of the summonses, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), in their Notice of Removal. On December 29, 2009 - more than 30 days after Case No. 3:09-cv-10217-DRH -PMF being originally served in this case - Defendants supplemented their Notice of Removal with a copy of the summonses. Plaintiff asserts that because Defendants filed the supplement after the 30-day removal period had elapsed it is untimely and should be stricken. The Court finds the omission of a copy of the summonses is a minor technical defect that may be cured even after the expiration of the 30-day removal period. See e.g. Riehl v. National Mut. Ins. Co., I374 F.2d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 1967) (omission of copy of complaint from removal notice was a "minor irregularity of no consequence"); Presnell v. Cottrell, Inc., No. 09-cv-656, 2009 WL 4923808, *4-5 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2009) (noting that a technical defect in a notice of removal may be cured by amendment even after the 30-day removal period); Browne v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 168 F.Supp. 796, 800 (N.D. Ill. 1959) (amendment to petition for removal after statutory time has passed may be permitted to cure technical defects). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Supplement to Notice of Removal is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 8, 2010 /s/ DavidRHer|do| Chief Judge United States District Court

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?