Kozaklewicz v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Dismiss WITH prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 12 (PFS Requirements). The case is dismissed WITH prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/18/2013. (dsw)

Download PDF
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: Angie Ancheta, et al. v. No. 3:10-cv-13246-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. 1 Shontay Ackerson v. No. 3:11-cv-10283-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Andrea Baginski v. No. 3:11-cv-12367-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Ashley Baker v. No. 3:10-cv-13883-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Callie M. Ball v. No. 3:10-cv-13875-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Megan Rae Berg v. No. 3:11-cv-11388-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Crystal Boroff v. No. 3:10-cv-13880-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Danielle Calabrese v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13371-DRH-PMF Denise Cudney v. No. 3:11-cv-10617-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Katie Donaldson v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10486-DRH-PMF Rochelle Dougherty v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11502-DRH-PMF Kaci Douglass v. Bayer Corp., et al. 1 No. 3:11-cv-10487-DRH-PMF This motion applies to all plaintiffs, i.e., Angie Anchetta and Mable Hughes. Heather Gibson v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10654-DRH-PMF Kirsten Goodlett v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10610-DRH-PMF Ashley Handy v. No. 3:11-cv-10036-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Tiffany Hansley v. No. 3:10-cv-13195-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Kiona Harvey v. No. 3:10-cv-13330-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Donna and Robert Hill, Jr. v. No. 3:10-cv-13596-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Ryann Hofmann v. No. 3:11-cv-10299-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Tammy Holmes v. No. 3:11-cv-10515-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Kathy Hutchinson v. No. 3:11-cv-10540-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Mireya and Jeff Iannuzzi v. Bayer Corp., et al. PMF No. 3:11-cv-11100-DRH- Kassandra Keeling v. No. 3:11-cv-10044-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Geneva Kenner v. No. 3:11-cv-10208-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Michelle Kielman v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13795-DRH-PMF Kara Kozaklewicz v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11481-DRH-PMF Carley Lockhart v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10609-DRH-PMF Melanie Lonczak v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12753-DRH-PMF Angela Lorinchak v. No. 3:11-cv-10972-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Kristen Mangino v. No. 3:10-cv-13358-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Danielle Mazur v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10255-DRH-PMF Jessica McCaslin v. No. 3:11-cv-10621-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Ashley Moore v. No. 3:11-cv-10023-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Sarah Moseley v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10454-DRH-PMF Tiffany Moses v. No. 3:11-cv-10536-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Clarissa Munoz v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10519-DRH-PMF Maggie C. Murdock v. No. 3:11-cv-11867-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Cynthia New v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10485-DRH-PMF Lauren M. Nolasco v. No. 3:11-cv-11928-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Kathleen Nold v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12795-DRH-PMF Monica Ortiz v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10418-DRH-PMF Vanessa Palomo v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10065-DRH-PMF Jessica Rios v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11008-DRH-PMF Joanne Roberts v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12965-DRH-PMF Marsha Rucker v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10270-DRH-PMF Mandy Schaible v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12793-DRH-PMF Raven L. Smith v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11637-DRH-PMF 3 Ursula Smith v. No. 3:10-cv-13400-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Kyrsten Unger v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10210-DRH-PMF Rachel Warner v. No. 3:10-cv-13879-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Melissa Watson v. No. 3:10-cv-13193-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Michelle Whiting v. No. 3:11-cv-10286-DRH-PMF Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Heather Young v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10672-DRH-PMF ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE HERNDON, Chief Judge: This matter is before the Court on the defendant Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 (“CMO 12”), for an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, in the above-captioned matters, with prejudice for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) obligations. On March 13, 2012, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. moved to dismiss the above captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with PFS obligations. The Court granted the motion on May 31, 2012. In the order dismissing the above captioned actions, the Court warned the plaintiffs that, “pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless plaintiffs serve defendants with a COMPLETED PFS or move to vacate the dismissal without 4 prejudice within 60 days after entry of this Order, the Order will be converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon defendants’ motion.” On March 28, 2013, approximately ten months after the entry of the order of dismissal without prejudice, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed the subject motion stating the plaintiffs are still not in compliance with their PFS obligations and asking the Court to convert the dismissals to dismissals with prejudice pursuant to Section E of CMO 12, To date, none of the above captioned plaintiffs have taken any steps to cure their PFS deficiencies, to address the without prejudice dismissal, or to reply to the motion for dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiffs have 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 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 5 CMO 12. Accordingly, pursuant to Section E of CMO 12, the plaintiffs’ complaints are hereby dismissed WITH prejudice. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. SO ORDERED: David R. Herndon 2013.06.18 13:17:43 -05'00' Chief Judge United States District Court Date: June 18, 2013 6

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?