Flynt v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 7/28/2011. (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:
Petra Asel v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12527-DRH-PMF
Lauren Baker v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12644-DRH-PMF
Ashley Blackard v. Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12230DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare
Shawna Carter v.Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No.
3:10-cv-13225-DRH-PMF
Vanessa Cervantes v.Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
No. 3:10-cv-13014-DRH-PMF
Autumn Dickson v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12921-DRH-PMF
Ashley Flynt v.Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.No.
3:10-cv-12485-DRH-PMF
Tanya Lynch v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12626-DRH-PMF
Ellen Miller v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No.
3:10-cv-10813-DRH-PMF
ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s (“Bayer”) motions, 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 April 12, 2011, Bayer moved to dismiss the following of the
above-captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with PFS
obligations (AselDOC. 7; Baker DOC. 6; BlackardDOC. 7; Carter DOC. 6;
Cervantes DOC. 6; Dickson DOC. 5; FlyntDOC. 5; Lynch DOC. 6; Miller DOC. 5.)
The Court granted the motion on May 5, 2011.

(AselDOC. 8; Baker DOC. 7;

BlackardDOC. 8; Carter DOC. 7; Cervantes DOC. 7; Dickson DOC. 6; FlyntDOC.
6; Lynch DOC. 7; Miller DOC. 6).
More than 60 days since the entry of the order of dismissal without
prejudice have passed, and plaintiffs still have not complied with their PFS
obligations.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section E of CMO 12, Bayer requests that
the 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.
SO ORDERED
Digitally signed by David
R. Herndon
Date: 2011.07.28 12:46:25
-05'00'

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: July 28, 2011