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

Filing 19

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Vacate. As to the following 13 plaintiffs the Court VACATES the order of dismissal and ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reinstate each plaintiff's case: (1) Ksee Ashcraft, (2) Judy Barke r, (3) Misty Brehm, (4) Morgan Chiti, (5) Rebekah Crosser, (6) Mary Eshbaugh, (7) Starlet Etheridge, (8) Elizabeth Grainger, (9) Diana Medina, (10) Talia Riffe, (11) Nicole Subler, (12) Kathy Thompson, and (13) Jessica Walden. These plaintiffs must cure any minor PFS delinquencies noted in the Court's order within 14 days. The motion to vacate the dismissal of the remaining plaintiffs is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 5/10/2012. (dsw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
_________________________________________
)
IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE))
3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
)
MDL No. 2100
_________________________________________
)
ORDER
VACATING DISMISSAL
This Document Relates to:
Natasha Haley, et al. v.
No. 3:11-cv-12892-DRH-PMF
1
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
I. BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2012, Bayer moved to dismiss numerous plaintiffs in the
above-captioned matter without prejudice for failure to comply with plaintiff fact
sheet (PFS) obligations (Doc. 4.) Plaintiffs did not respond to Bayer’s motion, and
the Court dismissed certain plaintiffs without prejudice on March 1, 2012 (Doc.
5). On April 26, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the order of dismissal as
to certain plaintiffs, stating that the named plaintiffs provided defendants with
completed plaintiff fact sheets in accordance with CMO 12.
1

Bayer filed a

This order applies to plaintiffs (1) Judy Barker, (2) Misty Brehm, (3)Morgan
Chiti, (4) Rebekah Crosser, (5) Mary Eshbaugh, (6) Starlet Etheridge, (7)
Elizabeth Grainger, (8) Diana Medina, (9) Talia Riffe, (10) Nicole Subler, (11)
Kathy Thompson, (12) Allison Tinder, (13) Emily De La Cruz, (14) Ksee Ashcraft,
(15) Andrea Ferris, (16) Sarah Fleck, (17) Austin Frazier, (18) Patricia Garcia,
(19) Rachel Locken, (20) Nicole Love, (21) Kylie Pulliam, (22) Michelle Rhodes,
(23) Sarah Vine, and (24) Jessica Walden.

responsive pleading on April 30, 2012 (Doc. 17). Bayer state that only 13 of the
24 plaintiffs have provided completed plaintiff fact sheet. Bayer is not opposed to
the court vacating the order of dismissal as to the 13 complaint plaintiffs. As to
the 11 non-compliant plaintiffs Bayer asks the Court to deny the motion to vacate.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiffs that have provided substantially complete PFS submissions or
PFS submissions containing only minor deficiencies
Bayer states that the following plaintiffs have provided substantially
complete PFS submissions or have provided PFS submissions containing only
minor deficiencies. As to these plaintiffs, Bayer states that it is not opposed to
vacating the order of dismissal. However, Bayer requests that the Court order the
plaintiffs to cure the identified minor deficiencies in a timely manner.
1. Ksee Ashcraft
a. minor deficiencies
b. questions
about
education,
employment,
alcohol/caffeine consumption are not complete

insurance,

and

2. Judy Barker
a. minor deficiencies
b. Ms. Barker has not submitted a completed federal disclosure
statement or a disability records release authorization.
3. Misty Brehm – substantially complete/no deficiencies identified
4. Morgan Chiti
a. minor deficiency
b. Ms. Chiti has not submitted a completed federal disclosure
statement.
5. Rebekah Crosser
a. Minor deficiency
b. Ms. Crosser has not submitted a completed federal disclosure
statement.

6. Mary Eshbaugh– substantially complete/no deficiencies identified
7. Starlet Etheridge– substantially complete/no deficiencies identified
8. Elizabeth Grainger– substantially complete/no deficiencies identified
9. Diana Medina– substantially complete/no deficiencies identified
10. Talia Riffe– substantially complete/no deficiencies identified
11. Nicole Subler– substantially complete/no deficiencies identified
12. Kathy Thompson
a. Minor deficiency
b. Ms. Thompson has not submitted a completed federal disclosure
statement.
13. Jessica Walden
a. Minor deficiency
b. Ms. Walden has not submitted a completed federal disclosure
statement.
B.
Plaintiffs who have failed to provide substantially complete PFS
submissions
As to the remaining 11 plaintiffs, Bayer is opposed to the motion to vacate.
Bayer contends that these plaintiffs have not submitted substantially complete
PFS materials. According to Bayer, the following PFS delinquencies exist:
1. Emily De La Cruz
a. No signed Declaration
b. No completed and signed Authorizations
c. No completed Federal Disclosure form
2. Andrea Ferris
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers
b. No completed Federal Disclosure form
3. Sarah Fleck
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers.
b. No signed Declaration

c. No completed and signed Authorizations
d. No completed Federal Disclosure form
4. Austin Frazier
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers
b. No signed Declaration
c. No completed and signed Authorizations
d. No completed Federal Disclosure form
5. Patricia Garcia
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers
b. No completed and signed Insurance Authorizations
c. No completed Federal Disclosure form
6. Rachel Locken
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers
b. No completed Federal Disclosure form
7. Nicole Love
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers
b. No signed Declaration
c. No completed and signed Authorizations
d. No completed Federal Disclosure form
8. Kylie Pulliam
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers
b. No signed Declaration
c. No completed and signed Authorizations
d. No completed Federal Disclosure form
9.

Michelle Rhodes
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers
b. No signed Declaration
c. No completed and signed Authorizations
d. No completed Federal Disclosure form

10. Allison Tinder
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers
b. No signed Declaration
c. No completed and signed Authorizations
d. No completed Federal Disclosure form

11. Sarah Vine
a. Does not contain responsive and substantially complete answers
b. No completed Federal Disclosure form
c.
III. CONCLUSION
Having considered the relevant pleadings and the requirements of CMO 12,
the Court orders as follows:
A. Plaintiffs who are in compliance with PFS obligations
As to the following 13 plaintiffs, the Court hereby VACATES the orders of
dismissal. (1) Ksee Ashcraft, (2) Judy Barker, (3) Misty Brehm, (4) Morgan Chiti,
(5) Rebekah Crosser, (6) Mary Eshbaugh, (7) Starlet Etheridge, (8) Elizabeth
Grainger, (9) Diana Medina, (10) Talia Riffe, (11) Nicole Subler, (12) Kathy
Thompson, and (13) Jessica Walden.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to

REINSTATE the actions of these 13 plaintiffs. FURTHER, the Court ORDERS
these plaintiffs to cure the PFS delinquencies noted by Bayer in its responsive
pleading within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order.
B. Plaintiffs who are not in compliance with PFS obligations
The following plaintiffs have failed to provide substantially complete
plaintiff fact sheets: (1) Emily De La Cruz, (2) Andrea Ferris. (3) Sarah Fleck,
(4)Austin Frazier, (5) Patricia Garcia, (6) Rachel Locken, (7) Nicole Love, (8) Kylie
Pulliam, (9) Michelle Rhodes, (10) Allison Tinder, and (11) Sarah Vine.
Accordingly, as to these non-compliant plaintiffs, the motion to vacate the order of
dismissal is DENIED.

FURTHER, The Court reminds the non-compliant plaintiffs that pursuant
to 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
[plaintiff fact sheet] order of dismissal without prejudice, the order will be
converted to a dismissal with prejudice upon defendants’ motion.”
In the instant case, the order of dismissal without prejudice was entered on
March 1, 2012.

Plaintiffs moved to vacate the dismissal on April 26, 2012.

Although plaintiffs moved to vacate within the 60 day deadline, their PFS
submissions are not substantially complete. The Court will allow plaintiffs an
additional 14 days from the entry of this order to serve defendants with
substantially complete PFS submissions. Once defendants have received
substantially complete PFS submissions, plaintiffs may move to vacate the order
of dismissal.
However, if plaintiffs fail to provide defendants with substantially complete
PFS submissions within 14 days of the entry of this order, the order of dismissal
will be converted to a dismissal with prejudice upon defendants’ motion.
SO ORDERED:

Digitally signed by David
R. Herndon
Date: 2012.05.10
12:27:27 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: May 10, 2012