Shook v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 23

ORDER, granting 22 MOTION for Order to Dismiss With Prejudice Plaintiffs Under CMO 79 filed by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/12/16. (jlrr )

Download PDF

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: Maria-Anne N. Newton v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:13-cv-20023-DRH-PMF Sherry Norris v. Bayer Schering Pharma AG, et al. No. 3:10-cv-11305-DRH-PMF Callista Nwoke v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12314-DRH-PMF Rebecca L. Oliveri v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-20102-DRH-PMF Destarte’ L. Osborne v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:10-cv-11878-DRH-PMF Shannon Peck-Cook v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-10183-DRH-PMF Michele Perino v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:14-cv-10048-DRH-PMF Jennifer Peterson v. Bayer Pharma AG, et al. No. 3:14-cv-10052-DRH-PMF Khia Peterson v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:13-cv-10688-DRH-PMF Brooke L. Phillips v. Bayer Pharma AG, et al. No. 3:11-cv-13194-DRH-PMF Patricia Ann Pilar v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:10-cv-13523-DRH-PMF Teresa Pleasant v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-20138-DRH-PMF Ronald Pollack Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of R.P., an Infant v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:13-cv-20010-DRH-PMF Tanilla Ponder v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12569-DRH-PMF Barbara Ramirez v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:10-cv-12437-DRH-PMF Anita M. Ramsey v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11443-DRH-PMF Jacqueline Randan v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-20086-DRH-PMF Gina Ray v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:14-cv-10363-DRH-PMF Courtney Reed v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-13605-DRH-PMF Jeannett Regalado v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12552-DRH-PMF Tracy Renaud v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-10474-DRH-PMF Ashley Nicole Rentz v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:13-cv-10742-DRH-PMF Kristin Robinson v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10086-DRH-PMF Veronica Rogers v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:13-cv-10138-DRH-PMF Ashley Rohrer v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10579-DRH-PMF Becky Roney v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12670-DRH-PMF Tiffiney Rooks v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11218-DRH-PMF Alecia Russell v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-20119-DRH-PMF Christy Sands v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:09-cv-10041-DRH-PMF Rebecka Sawyer v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12571-DRH-PMF Allison Schworm v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:13-cv-10792-DRH-PMF Catherine Agnes Scott v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10756-DRH-PMF Jennifer Lyn Sedik v. Bayer HealthCare No. 3:13-cv-10789-DRH-PMF 2 Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. Patricia Sexton v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:15-yz-00268-DRH-PMF Cathy Shafer v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12835-DRH-PMF Angela Shook v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-12956-DRH-PMF Kathryn Shurbet v. Bayer HealthCare LLC, et al. No. 3:14-cv-20001-DRH-PMF Debra Simons v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:14-cv-10360-DRH-PMF Marian Sinegar v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:10-cv-20460-DRH-PMF Sheila Smiley v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:13-cv-10602-DRH-PMF LeAnn Smith v. Bayer Schering Pharma AG, et al. No. 3:10-cv-13073-DRH-PMF Raven Stanley v. Bayer Schering Pharma AG, et al. No. 3:10-cv-11308-DRH-PMF Lauren Steiner v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-20111-DRH-PMF ORDER GRANTING WITH PREJUDICE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CMO 79 On December 22, 2015, the Bayer Defendants moved to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs in the above captioned matters, with prejudice, pursuant to Section III of Case Management Order 79 (“CMO 79”). Pursuant to CMO 79, each plaintiff had 14 days to file an opposition to the Bayer Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Case Management Order 79 further provides that failure to timely file an opposition “will result in an automatic dismissal with prejudice.” CMO 79 § III ¶ 5(b). The above captioned plaintiffs failed to file an opposition to the Bayer Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Accordingly, these actions are subject to automatic dismissal with prejudice. 3 The Court therefore GRANTS the motions to dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs in the above captioned matters. The claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in each of the above captioned actions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 12th day of January, 2016. Digitally signed by Judge David R. Herndon Date: 2016.01.12 09:30:52 -06'00' United States District Judge 4

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?