Patton v. Bayer Healthcare Phamaceuticals, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 11/18/2010. (dsw)

-PMF Patton v. Bayer Healthcare Phamaceuticals, Inc. et al

Doc. 14

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 _________________________________________ ) ORDER This Document Relates to: Gardner v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10034-DRH-PMF Hornby v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10105-DRH-PMF LaBelle v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:09-cv-10088-DRH-PMF Lodato v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10131-DRH-PMF McMillan v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10048-DRH-PMF Myers v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10020-DRH-PMF Britt v. Bayer HealthCare Pharms., Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10399-DRH-PMF McGaha v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-20222-DRH-PMF Patton v. Bayer HealthCare Pharms., Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10267-DRH-PMF ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER HERNDON, Chief Judge: This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s ("Bayer") motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 ("CMO 12"), for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims in the above-captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with their Plaintiff Fact Sheet

Dockets.Justia.com

("PFS") obligations. 1 Bayer contends that the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters have not served substantially complete PFSs and are therefore delinquent pursuant to CMO 12. Under Section E of CMO 12, Plaintiffs were given 14 days from the date of Defendant's motion 2 to file a response either certifying that they served upon Defendants and Defendants received a completed PFS, and attaching appropriate documentation of receipt or an opposition to Defendant's motion. Only one Plaintiff in the above-captioned member actions timely filed a response to Bayer's motion to dismiss pursuant to CMO 12. Plaintiff Megan Britt (member action number 3:10-cv-10399) filed a response certifying that she had corrected the deficiencies in her PFS and that the necessary documents had been served upon Bayer (Britt Doc. 13). The Plaintiffs in the remaining member actions have failed to file any response to Bayer's motion to dismiss. Because the remaining Plaintiffs have failed to respond, in any way, to Bayer's allegations that the submitted PFSs are not substantially complete, the Court finds that the remaining Plaintiffs in the
1

Under Section C of CMO 12, each Plaintiff is required to serve Defendants with a completed PFS, including a signed Declaration, executed record release Authorizations, and copies of all documents subject to the requests for production contained in the PFS which are in the possession of Plaintiff. Section B of CMO 12 further provides that a completed PFS is due "45 days from the date of service of the first answer to her Complaint or the docketing of her case in this MDL, or 45 days from the date of this Order, whichever is later."

The motions to dismiss in Gardner, Hornby, LaBelle, Lodato, McMillan, and Myers were filed on October 27, 2010 (Gardner Doc. 20; Hornby Doc. 19; LaBelle Doc. 35; Lodato Doc. 19; McMillan Doc. 20; and Myers Doc. 20). The motions to dismiss in Britt, McGaha, and Patton were filed on October 26, 2010 (Britt Doc. 12; McGaha Doc. 17; Patton Doc. 13).

2

above-captioned member actions have failed to comply with the requirements of CMO 12. Accordingly, the Court hereby Orders as follows: 1. The motion to dismiss filed in Britt v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, et al. No. 3:10-cv-10399-DRH-PMF is DENIED as MOOT. The following member actions are dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements of CMO 12: Gardner v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10034-DRH-PMF Hornby v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10105-DRH-PMF LaBelle v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:09-cv-10088-DRH-PMF Lodato v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10131-DRH-PMF McMillan v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10048-DRH-PMF Myers v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10020-DRH-PMF McGaha v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-20222-DRH-PMF Patton v. Bayer HealthCare Pharms., Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10267DRH-PMF

2.

Further, the Court reminds Plaintiffs that, pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless Plaintiffs serve Defendants with a completed PFS or move to

vacate the dismissal without prejudice within 60 days after entry of this Order, the Order will be converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon Defendants' motion. SO ORDERED

David R. Herndon 2010.11.18 15:53:05 -06'00'
Chief Judge United States District Court Date: November 18, 2010