Malik et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 12/28/2010. (dsw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS _________________________________________________ IN RE: YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) ) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND ) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ) ________________________________________________ This Document Relates to: 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF MDL No. 2100 ORDER Patton v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv10267-DRH-PMF Malik v. Bayer Corporation et al. No. 3:10-cv-11251-DRH-PMF Dudziak v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 3:10-cv-13042-DRH-PMF ORDER HERNDON, Chief Judge: This matter is before the Court on motions filed in the above captioned actions. Having considered the motions and the relevant rules of law the Court ORDERS as follows: I. Patton v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv10267-DRH-PMF The law firm Milberg LLP and Jeffrey R. Messinger ("Movants"), move for leave to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Chasity Patton (Doc. 16). Another attorney is not being substituted. After considering Movants' motion the Court finds that the requirements of Local Rule 83.1(g) have not been satisfied. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(g), Movants were required to notify Plaintiff regarding the motion to withdraw at her last known residential address via personal service or certified mail. Movants' motion to withdraw and notice of withdraw do not indicate that such notice was provided. Further, Movants have failed to provide Plaintiff's last known address as required by Local Rule 83.1(g). Accordingly, Movants' motion to withdraw as counsel of record is DENIED. Movants may re-file a motion to withdraw as counsel of record that complies with the requirements of Local Rule 83.1(g). II. Malik v. Bayer Corporation et al. No. 3:10-cv-11251-DRH-PMF This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to dismiss her action without prejudice pursuant to "Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)" (Doc. 4). In the instant case, no answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court treats Plaintiff's motion as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff's action without prejudice. III. Dudziak v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 3:10-cv-13042-DRH-PMF This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for an enlargement of time in which to serve the Complaint that she filed on October 12, 2010 on Defendants Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bayer Schering Pharma AG (Doc. 5). Plaintiff requests the Court grant her fourteen (14) days from the granting of her motion to mail and e-mail the Complaint as instructed in Amended Case Management Order No. 9 (MDL 2100 Doc. 1137). On December 28, 2010, the Court entered the Second Amended Case Management Order No. 9 (MDL 2100 Doc. 1462) vacating Amended Case Management Order No. 9 (MDL 2100 Doc. 1137). Pursuant to the Second Amended Case Management Order No. 9, Plaintiff has ninety (90) days from December 28, 2010 to complete service on Bayer Schering Pharma AG or Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MDL 2100 Doc. 1462 III.D). Accordingly, an enlargement of time is no longer necessary and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as MOOT. SO ORDERED David R. Herndon 2010.12.28 14:23:12 -06'00' Chief Judge United States District Court Date: December 28, 2010

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?