George v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/9/2015. (dsw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 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: Nichole Clark v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. Jennifer May Condra v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:10-cv-10339-DRH-PMF Chancey Craig v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10575-DRH-PMF Brynn Danyluk v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11183-DRH-PMF Nicole Defauw-Tucker, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11662-DRH-PMF Sandra Deroche v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:10-cv-11757-DRH-PMF Malinda Dodson v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.1 No. 3:10-cv-13217-DRH-PMF Tiffany Doucet v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:09-cv-20116-DRH-PMF Kelly Engelking v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12077-DRH-PMF Christy Etzig v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13426-DRH-PMF Kira Fisher v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11837-DRH-PMF Yvette Flores v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 1 No. 3:11-cv-10634-DRH-PMF No. 3:11-cv-10387-DRH-PMF Plaintiff a/k/a Malinda Lastinger-Zimmerman. Rebecca Fogg v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10364-DRH-PMF Chelsea Follin v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13509-DRH-PMF Angela George v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11078-DRH-PMF Jaclyn Gonzalez v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:09-cv-10107-DRH-PMF Natasha Greenwalt-Alcala v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12526-DRH-PMF Ashley Hagood v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-10765-DRH-PMF Chelsea Hall v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13069-DRH-PMF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE HERNDON, District Judge: On November 14, 2014, Bayer filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, pursuant to Case Management Order 60 (“CMO 60”), the above captioned plaintiffs’ claims for failure to submit complete Claim Package Materials.2 Pursuant to the Court’s local rules, the plaintiffs had 30 days to file a responsive pleading. None of the above captioned plaintiffs filed a responsive pleading. At the expiration of the responsive pleading deadline, as is required 2 Pursuant to the “Settlement Agreement,” Exhibit A to CMO 60, plaintiffs enrolled in the Gallbladder Resolution Program are required to submit to the Claims Administrator all the Claim Package Materials identified in Section 3.03(a) of the Settlement Agreement. Section 3.01 of the Settlement Agreement fixed November 18, 2013 as the deadline for submission of a complete Claims Package. The subject motion asserts that the plaintiffs have failed to comply with this requirement. 2 under CMO 60, the motion was considered by Special Master Stephen Saltzburg.3 On December 22, 2014, Special Master’s Saltzburg’s report and recommendation relating to the above captioned cases was docketed. In each case, Special Master Saltzburg found that the subject plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of CMO 60 and recommended that the subject plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice in accord with the requirements of CMO 60. The parties were given 14 days to respond or object to Special Master Saltzburg’s report and recommendation. The deadline for responding or objecting to the Special Master’s report has expired. None of the above captioned plaintiffs have responded or objected. Upon consideration of Bayer’s motion to dismiss, the Special Master’s report, and the requirements of CMO 60, the Court finds that the above captioned 3 Section VIII of CMO 60 “appoints Professor Stephen Saltzburg as Special Master to hear motions to dismiss claims that fail to comply with the terms of the Agreement, and to recommend to this Court rulings on such motions, as specified in the Agreement” (Doc. 2739 p. 8). 3 plaintiffs have failed to comply with CMO 60. Accordingly, the claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 8th day of January, 2015. David R. Herndon 2015.01.08 16:28:47 -06'00' United States District Judge 4

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?