Martinez v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 2/13/2015. (dsw)

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:
Pratanya H. Dias, et al. v.
Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12336-DRH-PMF

Jessica Lynn Hamouri, et al. v.
Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:10-cv-13201-DRH-PMF

Kimberly Harris, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12949-DRH-PMF

Katrina Hart v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12522-DRH-PMF

Lyndsie Herman v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:13-cv-10354-DRH-PMF

Andrea Johnson v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11128-DRH-PMF

Annie Khan v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:12-cv-11378-DRH-PMF

Angel Laylor v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-13669-DRH-PMF

Jennifer K. LeBlanc v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:12-cv-10877-DRH-PMF

April Lopez v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11779-DRH-PMF

Jamie Lynn Lopez v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:10-cv-12831-DRH-PMF

Andrea Lorton v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:10-cv-10130-DRH-PMF

Amrie Lott v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:12-cv-10878-DRH-PMF

Casandra Malmberg v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10177-DRH-PMF

Natalie Mann v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:13-cv-10349-DRH-PMF

Natalie Marcotte v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:12-cv-10768-DRH-PMF

Jessica K. Martin v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:13-cv-10293-DRH-PMF

Kassondra Martinez v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11182-DRH-PMF

Elizabeth Matey v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13097-DRH-PMF

Laura McClellan v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11485-DRH-PMF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
HERNDON, District Judge:
On December 9, 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. 1
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
under CMO 60, the motion was considered by Special Master Stephen Saltzburg. 2
On January 26, 2015, Special Master’s Saltzburg’s report and recommendation

1

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
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).

2

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
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 13th day of February, 2015.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2015.02.13
16:12:12 -06'00'

United States District Judge

3