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)
<![CDATA[
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?
