Mangino v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss WITH prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 12 (PFS Requirements). The case is dismissed WITH prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/18/2013. (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:
Angie Ancheta, et al. v.
No. 3:10-cv-13246-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 1
Shontay Ackerson v.
No. 3:11-cv-10283-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Andrea Baginski v.
No. 3:11-cv-12367-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Ashley Baker v.
No. 3:10-cv-13883-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Callie M. Ball v.
No. 3:10-cv-13875-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Megan Rae Berg v.
No. 3:11-cv-11388-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Crystal Boroff v.
No. 3:10-cv-13880-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Danielle Calabrese v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13371-DRH-PMF
Denise Cudney v.
No. 3:11-cv-10617-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Katie Donaldson v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10486-DRH-PMF

Rochelle Dougherty v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11502-DRH-PMF
Kaci Douglass v. Bayer Corp., et al.
1

No. 3:11-cv-10487-DRH-PMF

This motion applies to all plaintiffs, i.e., Angie Anchetta and Mable Hughes.

Heather Gibson v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10654-DRH-PMF

Kirsten Goodlett v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10610-DRH-PMF

Ashley Handy v.
No. 3:11-cv-10036-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Tiffany Hansley v.
No. 3:10-cv-13195-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Kiona Harvey v.
No. 3:10-cv-13330-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Donna and Robert Hill, Jr. v.
No. 3:10-cv-13596-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Ryann Hofmann v.
No. 3:11-cv-10299-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Tammy Holmes v.
No. 3:11-cv-10515-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Kathy Hutchinson v.
No. 3:11-cv-10540-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Mireya and Jeff Iannuzzi v. Bayer Corp., et al.
PMF

No. 3:11-cv-11100-DRH-

Kassandra Keeling v.
No. 3:11-cv-10044-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Geneva Kenner v.
No. 3:11-cv-10208-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Michelle Kielman v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-13795-DRH-PMF

Kara Kozaklewicz v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11481-DRH-PMF

Carley Lockhart v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10609-DRH-PMF

Melanie Lonczak v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12753-DRH-PMF

Angela Lorinchak v.
No. 3:11-cv-10972-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

Kristen Mangino v.
No. 3:10-cv-13358-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Danielle Mazur v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10255-DRH-PMF

Jessica McCaslin v.
No. 3:11-cv-10621-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Ashley Moore v.
No. 3:11-cv-10023-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Sarah Moseley v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10454-DRH-PMF

Tiffany Moses v.
No. 3:11-cv-10536-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Clarissa Munoz v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10519-DRH-PMF

Maggie C. Murdock v.
No. 3:11-cv-11867-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Cynthia New v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10485-DRH-PMF

Lauren M. Nolasco v.
No. 3:11-cv-11928-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Kathleen Nold v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12795-DRH-PMF

Monica Ortiz v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10418-DRH-PMF

Vanessa Palomo v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10065-DRH-PMF

Jessica Rios v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11008-DRH-PMF

Joanne Roberts v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12965-DRH-PMF

Marsha Rucker v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10270-DRH-PMF

Mandy Schaible v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12793-DRH-PMF

Raven L. Smith v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11637-DRH-PMF

3

Ursula Smith v.
No. 3:10-cv-13400-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Kyrsten Unger v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10210-DRH-PMF

Rachel Warner v.
No. 3:10-cv-13879-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Melissa Watson v.
No. 3:10-cv-13193-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Michelle Whiting v.
No. 3:11-cv-10286-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Heather Young v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10672-DRH-PMF

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.
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

4

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

5

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
reflecting the same.
SO ORDERED:

David R. Herndon
2013.06.18
13:17:43 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: June 18, 2013

6