Kendrick 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)

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