Colletti et al v. Johnson et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Rachael Colletti WITH prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 12 (PFS Requirements). The claims of Plaintiff Rachael Colletti are dismissed WITH prejudice. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same at the close of the case. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/20/2013. (dsw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN RE: YASMIN AND YAZ
(DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION

)
)
)
)
)

3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF
MDL No. 2100

This Document Relates to:
Rachael Colletti, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al.1
PMF

No.

3:10-cv-11838-DRH-

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the defendant Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 (“CMO
12”), for an order dismissing the above-captioned matter with prejudice for failure
to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) obligations.
On August 30, 2011, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. moved to
dismiss the above captioned matter without prejudice for failure to comply with
PFS obligations.2 The Court granted the motion on September 23, 2011. 3
In the order dismissing the above captioned action, the Court warned the
plaintiff that, “pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless plaintiffs serve defendants
with a COMPLETED PFS or move to vacate the dismissal without prejudice

1
2
3

This motion applies only to plaintiff Rachael Colletti.
Colletti D.E. 9.
Colletti D.E. 10.

within 60 days after entry of this Order, the Order will be converted to a
Dismissal With Prejudice upon defendants’ motion.”
On April 1, 2013, more than one year after the entry of the order of
dismissal without prejudice, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed the
subject motion stating the plaintiff is still not in compliance with her PFS
obligations and asking the Court to convert the dismissal into a dismissal with
prejudice pursuant to Section E of CMO 12,
To date, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to cure the PFS deficiencies, to
address the without prejudice dismissal, or to reply to the motion for dismissal
with prejudice. The plaintiff has had ample time to cure the any PFS deficiencies
and avoid a with prejudice dismissal.
Having considered the motion and the relevant provisions of CMO 12 the
Court ORDERS as follows:
The plaintiff has failed to comply with her obligations pursuant to CMO 12
and more than 60 days have passed since the entry of the order of dismissal
without prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 12. Accordingly, pursuant to
Section E of CMO 12, the plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed WITH
prejudice.

2

Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
reflecting the same at the close of the case.
SO ORDERED:

David R. Herndon
2013.06.20
12:15:27 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: June 20, 2013

3