Jennings v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss. The matter is dismissed WITH prejudice for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet Requirements. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 5/20/2013. (dsw) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

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:
Stacey L. Altman v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12846-DRH-PMF

Elizabeth Dinkel v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13280-DRH-PMF

Coesha Jackson v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13111-DRH-PMF

Susan D. Jennings v. Bayer Corp., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12990-DRH-PMF

Daysha Kelly v. Bayer Pharma AG, et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12320-DRH-PMF

Patricia Lawson v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12948-DRH-PMF

Erin E. Martinez and C. John Martinez v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13361-DRH-PMF

Christine Medina v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13222-DRH-PMF

Brittany Roberts v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11575-DRH-PMF

Joi Robinson v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12950-DRH-PMF

Diana J. Seymour v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-11243-DRH-PMF

Sammer Yacoub v.
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13136-DRH-PMF

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
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 July 2, 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 September 21, 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 28, 2013 sought
dismissal of certain plaintiffs in numerous member actions. This order addresses the single
plaintiff actions (including actions involving consortium claims).
2

Altman D.E. 6; McMillan D.E. 6; Dinkel D.E. 8; Hamilton D.E. 6; Jackson D.E. 6; Jennings D.E.
6; Kelly D.E. 10; Lawson D.E. 6; Martinez D.E. 8; Medina D.E. 6; Reid D.E. 6; Roberts D.E. 18;
Robinson D,E. 6; Seymour D.E. 6; Shelbourne-Green D.E. 6; Yacoub D.E. 6.
3

Altman D.E. 7; McMillan D.E. 7; Dinkel D.E. 9; Hamilton D.E. 7; Jackson D.E. 7; Jennings D.E.
7; Kelly D.E. 11; Lawson D.E. 8; Martinez D.E. 9; Medina D.E. 7; Reid D.E. 7; Roberts D.E. 19;
Robinson D,E. 7; Seymour D.E. 7; Shelbourne-Green D.E. 7; Yacoub D.E.7 (emphasis in original).

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 28, 2013, more than 60 days after the entry of the order of
dismissal without prejudice, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed the
subject motion stating that the plaintiffs are still not in compliance with their PFS
obligations and asking the Court to convert the dismissals without prejudice into
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 28, 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 of their claims.
Having considered the motion and the relevant provisions of CMO 12 the
Court ORDERS as follows:

Altman D.E. 7; McMillan D.E. 7; Dinkel D.E. 9; Hamilton D.E. 7; Jackson D.E. 7; Jennings D.E.
7; Kelly D.E. 11; Lawson D.E. 8; Martinez D.E. 9; Medina D.E. 7; Reid D.E. 7; Roberts D.E. 19;
Robinson D,E. 7; Seymour D.E. 7; Shelbourne-Green D.E. 7; Yacoub D.E.7.

4

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 claims of the
plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions are hereby dismissed WITH
prejudice.
Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
reflecting the same.
SO ORDERED:

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.05.20
11:17:29 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: May 20, 2013

4