Garcia v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 12/21/2011. (mtm)

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:
Rebecca Burgess v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10187-DRH-PMF

Kayla Carrico v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10191-DRH-PMF

Brittany Garcia v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12291-DRH-PMF

Erica Tillman v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11794-DRH-PMF

Michelle Bledsoe v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10332-DRH-PMF

Lisa Kopishke v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12196-DRH-PMF

Jackie Norrod v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11203-DRH-PMF

Caroline Pena v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12842-DRH-PMF

ORDER ON BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.’S
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
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 with prejudice for failure to comply with their Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”)
obligations.
On July 12, 2011, Bayer moved to dismiss plaintiffs in the Burgess, Carrico,
Garcia, and Tillman matters without prejudice for failure to comply with PFS
obligations.1 The Court granted these motions on August 4, 2011.2 More than 60
days since the entry of the order of dismissal without prejudice has passed, and
plaintiffs still have not complied with their PFS obligations. Accordingly, pursuant
to Section E of CMO 12, Bayer respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order
converting the dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice.
On July 18, 2011, Bayer moved to dismiss plaintiffs in the Bledsoe,
Kopishke, Norrod, and Pena matters without prejudice for failure to comply with
PFS obligations.3 The Court granted these motions on August 25, 2011.4 More
than 60 days since the entry of the order of dismissal without prejudice has
passed, and plaintiffs still have not complied with their PFS obligations.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section E of CMO 12, Bayer respectfully requests that the

1

Burgess Doc. 6; Carrico Doc. 6; Garcia Doc. 7; Tillman Doc. 10.

2

Burgess Doc. 7; Carrico Doc. 7; Garcia Doc. 8; Tillman Doc. 11.

3
4

Bledsoe Doc. 6; Kopishke Doc. 6; Norrod Doc. 12; Pena Doc. 12
Bledsoe Doc. 7; Kopishke Doc. 7; Norrod Doc. 13; Pena Doc. 13

Page 2 of 3

Court issue an Order converting the dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal
with prejudice.
Having considered the motion and the relevant provisions of CMO 12, the
Court ORDERS as follows:
Plaintiffs in the above captioned actions have failed to comply with their
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, plaintiffs’ complaints are

hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Further, the Court directs the Clerk of the

Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Each party shall bear its own costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 21st day of December, 2011.

David R. Herndon
2011.12.21
14:37:48 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3