Alday v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss WITH prejudice for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet Requirements. The motion to dismiss with prejudice is GRANTED. FURTHER, the Court instructs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 5/22/2013. (dsw)

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:
Rhonda L. Adams v.
No. 3:11-cv-12309-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Jennifer Alday v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12382-DRH-PMF

Amy Baechel v.
No. 3:11-cv-12084-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Jennifer S. Bessinger v.
No. 3:11-cv-12762-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Michelle Coghill v.
No. 3:11-cv-12144-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Chala S. Crawford v.
No. 3:11-cv-12780-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Kimberly Franklin v.
No. 3:11-cv-11948-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Cyndel L. and Raymundo Galindo v.
No. 3:11-cv-12237-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Chelsea D. Masongsong v.
No. 3:11-cv-12635-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Rebecca Massey v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12416-DRH-PMF

Tamara Morris v.
No. 3:10-cv-13690-DRH-PMF
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Holly Newton v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12926-DRH-PMF

Diana Olliges v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12315-DRH-PMF

Mariah Smith v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12267-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.1
On April 25, 2012, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. moved to
dismiss the above captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with
PFS obligations.2 The Court granted the motion on June 5, 2012. 3
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
1

The motion to dismiss filed by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. on March 27, 2013 sought
dismissal of certain plaintiffs in numerous member actions. This order addresses the single
plaintiff actions (including actions involving consortium claims) where no responsive pleading was
filed.

2

Adams D.E. 6; Alday D.E. 6; Baechel D.E. 6; Bessinger D.E. 9; Coghill D.E. 6; Crawford D.E. 9;
Franklin D.E. 6; Galindo D.E. 6; Masongsong D.E. 6; Massey D.E. 6; Morris D.E. 10; Newton D.E.
6; Olliges D.E. 11; Smith D.E. 11; Veal D.E. 6.

3

Adams D.E. 7; Alday D.E. 7; Baechel D.E. 7; Bessinger D.E. 10; Coghill D.E. 7; Crawford D.E.
10; Franklin D.E. 7; Galindo D.E. 7; Masongsong D.E. 7; Massey D.E. 7; Morris D.E. 11; Newton
D.E. 7; Olliges D.E. 12; Smith D.E. 12; Veal D.E. 7.

2

prejudice within 60 days after entry of this Order, the Order will be
converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon defendants’ motion.”4
On March 27, 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,
The Court notes that, pursuant to Section E of CMO 12, “[u]nless Plaintiff
has served Defendants with a completed PFS or has moved to vacate the
dismissal without prejudice within 60 days after entry of any such Order of
Dismissal without Prejudice, the order will be converted to a Dismissal With
Prejudice upon Defendants’ motion.” (MDL 2100 Doc. 836) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Court could have immediately converted the above captioned
dismissals to dismissals with prejudice on March 27, 2013, the day Bayer
HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed the subject motion.
More than 30 days have passed since Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals
Inc.’s motion was filed. Thus, 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:

4

Adams D.E. 7; Alday D.E. 7; Baechel D.E. 7; Bessinger D.E. 10; Coghill D.E. 7; Crawford D.E.
10; Franklin D.E. 7; Galindo D.E. 7; Masongsong D.E. 7; Massey D.E. 7; Morris D.E. 11; Newton
D.E. 7; Olliges D.E. 12; Smith D.E. 12; Veal D.E. 7 (emphasis in original).

3

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
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
2013.05.22
15:20:34 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: May 22, 2013

4