Spears v. Bayer Corporation et al
Filing
11
ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss WITH prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 12 (PFS Requirements). The matter is dismissed WITH prejudice. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/20/2013. (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:
Santina Spears v. Bayer Corp., et al.
PMF
No.
3:11-cv-10892-DRH-
ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the motion of the defendant, Pharma AG,
formerly known as Bayer Schering Pharma AG,1 pursuant to Case Management
Order 12 (“CMO 12”), for an order dismissing the above-captioned matter with
prejudice for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) obligations.
On February 9, 2012, Bayer Pharma AG moved to dismiss the above
captioned matter without prejudice for failure to comply with PFS obligations. 2
The Court granted the motion on March 1, 2012. 3
In the order dismissing the above captioned action, the Court warned the
plaintiff that, “pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless plaintiffs serve defendants
1
The Court notes that effective July 1, 2011, Bayer Schering Pharma AG (as named in Plaintiff’s
complaint) was renamed Bayer Pharma AG.
2
D.E. 6.
3
D.E. 7.
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 April 1, 2013, more than one year after the entry of the order of
dismissal without prejudice, the defendant filed the subject motion stating the
plaintiff is still not in compliance with her PFS obligations and asking the Court to
convert the dismissal into a dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Section E of
CMO 12,
To date, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to cure the PFS deficiencies, to
address the without prejudice dismissal, or to reply to the motion for dismissal
with prejudice. The plaintiff has 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 plaintiff has failed to comply with her 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 plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed WITH
prejudice.
2
Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
reflecting the same.
SO ORDERED:
David R. Herndon
2013.06.20
12:21:11 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Date: June 20, 2013
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?