Moore v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 10/24/11. (skp)

Download PDF
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 Order Dismissing With Prejudice This Document Relates to: Ashley Bopp v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12660-DRH-PMF Meagan Moore v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12696-DRH-PMF Jennie Coachman v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11016-DRH-PMF Nicole Powell v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11030-DRH-PMF Cora Gaudio v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10815-DRH-PMF Janessa Turner v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12555-DRH-PMF Kathryn Harris v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10249-DRH-PMF Tereasa Turner v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11105-DRH-PMF Nina Kendrick v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13586-DRH-PMF ORDER DISMISSING 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 June 30, 2011, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. moved to dismiss the above-captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with PFS obligations.1 The Court granted these motions on July 21, 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, on September 23, 2011, pursuant to Section E of CMO 12, Bayer moved for an Order converting the dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice. None of the plaintiffs has responded to Bayer’s motion. 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 1 Bopp DOC. 6; Coachman DOC. 6; Gaudio DOC. 6; Harris DOC. 7; Kendrick DOC. 6; Moore DOC. 6; Powell DOC. 6; J. Turner DOC. 8; T. Turner DOC. 6. 2 Bopp DOC. 7; Coachman DOC. 7; Gaudio DOC. 7; Harris DOC. 8; Kendrick DOC. 7; Moore DOC. 7; Powell DOC. 7; J. Turner DOC. 9; T. Turner DOC. 7. 2 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. SO ORDERED Digitally signed by David R. Herndon Date: 2011.10.24 11:14:02 -05'00' Chief Judge United States District Court Date: October 24, 2011 3

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?