Westbrook et al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice as to plaintiff Autumn Weatherspoon only. Further, the Court DIRECTS 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 6/13/2013. (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:
Angel Ferrell, et al. v.
No. 3:10-cv-13178-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 1
Rebecca Franco, et al. v.
No. 3:10-cv-13240-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 2
Anna Garcia, et al. v.
No. 3:10-cv-13244-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 3
Whitney Ingram, et al. v.
No. 3:11-cv-10652-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 4
Debbie Knight, et al. v. Bayer Corp.,
et al. 5

No. 3:10-cv-12903-DRH-PMF

Kristy Lee, et al. v.
No. 3:10-cv-13248-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 6
Angelica Lopez, et al. v. Bayer Corp.,
et al. 7

No. 3:10-cv-12941-DRH-PMF

1

This motion applies only to plaintiff Elizabeth Muldoon.

2

This motion applies only to plaintiff Elizabeth Luginbyhl.

3

This motion applies only to plaintiff Anna Garcia.

4

This motion applies only to plaintiff Whitney Ingram.

5

This motion applies only to plaintiff San Juana Elizabeth Martinez Rodriguez.

6

This motion applies only to plaintiff Anna Mauldin.

7

This motion applies only to plaintiffs Kristi Hammett Amador and Angelica Lopez.

Melanie Lowrey, et al. v. Bayer Corp.,
et al. 8

No. 3:10-cv-12269-DRH-PMF

Kristin Saenz, et al. v. Bayer Corp.,
et al. 9

No. 3:10-cv-12977-DRH-PMF

Michelle Simpkins, et al. v.
No. 3:10-cv-13242-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 10
Atara Stewart, et al. v.
No. 3:10-cv-13243-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 11
Liz Westbrook, et al. v.
No. 3:10-cv-13247-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 12
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 plaintiffs’ claims, in the above-captioned
matters, with prejudice for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”)
obligations.
On March 13, 2012, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. moved to
dismiss the above captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with
PFS obligations. The Court granted the motion on May 31, 2012.
8

This motion applies only to plaintiff Danielle Smith.

9

This motion applies only to plaintiffs Ashley Ruby and Kristin Saenz.

10

This motion applies only to plaintiff Candyce Roberts.

11

This motion applies only to plaintiff Dalynn Dowling.

12

This motion applies only to plaintiff Autumn Weatherspoon.

In the order dismissing the above captioned actions, the Court warned the
plaintiffs that, “pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless plaintiffs serve
defendants with a COMPLETED PFS or move to vacate the dismissal without
prejudice within 60 days after entry of this Order, the Order will be
converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon defendants’ motion.”
On March 28, 2013, approximately ten months after the entry of the order
of dismissal without prejudice, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed the
subject motion stating the plaintiffs are still not in compliance with their PFS
obligations and asking the Court to convert the dismissals to dismissals with
prejudice pursuant to Section E of CMO 12,
To date, none of the above captioned plaintiffs have taken any steps to cure
their PFS deficiencies, to address the without prejudice dismissal, or to reply to
the motion for dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiffs have 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 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, the plaintiffs’
complaints are hereby dismissed WITH prejudice.
Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment at
the close of the case.
SO ORDERED:
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.06.13
16:21:14 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: June 13, 2013