Winnick et al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING 7 MOTION for Order to Dismiss With Prejudice - Plaintiffs Melita Winnick, Holly Wuebbling Only filed by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.., Melita Winnick and Holly Wuebbling terminated. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 8/13/14. (klh, )

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:

Brittany Senko, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 1
Ellen Sheehan, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 2

No. 3:13-cv-10404-DRH-PMF

Lisa Sims, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 3

No. 3:13-cv-10368-DRH-PMF

Amanda Tinajero, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 4

No. 3:13-cv-10498-DRH-PMF

Barbara Willimann-Colley, et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 5

No. 3:11-cv-12543-DRH-PMF

Jennifer Wilson, et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 6

No. 3:13-cv-10382-DRH-PMF

Melita Winnick, et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 7

No. 3:11-cv-12100-DRH-PMF

Catrina Yanna, et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 8

1

No. 3:12-cv-11404-DRH-PMF

No. 3:11-cv-12972-DRH-PMF

This Order applies to only plaintiffs Renee Boller, Brittany Senko, and Lillian Smith.
This Order applies to only plaintiffs Rena Cox and Ashley Yoell.
3
This Order applies to only plaintiffs Katrina Drake, Alaina Maddox, and Lisa Sims.
4
This Order applies to all plaintiffs in the Tinajero case: Amanda Tinajero and Tomara Wright.
5
This Order applies to only plaintiff Esmeralda Hernandez-Juni.
6
This Order applies to only plaintiff Jennifer Al-Forejy.
7
This Order applies to only plaintiffs Melita Winnick and Holly Wuebbling.
8
This Order applies to only plaintiff Catrina Yanna.
2

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
On June 19, 2014, Bayer filed a motion seeking with prejudice dismissal,
of the above captioned plaintiffs’ claims. The motion seeks dismissal, pursuant to
Case Management Order 60 (“CMO 60”), for failure to submit any Claim Package
Materials. 9
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. 10 On July 25, 2014, Special Master’s Saltzburg’s report and
recommendation relating to the above captioned cases was docketed. 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.
In each case, the parties were given 14 days to respond or object to Special
Master Saltzburg’s report and recommendation. The 14 day deadline for

9

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.
10
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

responding or objecting to the Special Master’s report has expired. None of the
above captioned plaintiffs has 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 Court adopts
Special Master Saltzburg’s report and recommendation. The above captioned
plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with
the requirements of CMO 60.
SO ORDERED:

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2014.08.13
11:23:49 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: August 13, 2014

3