Diana DeLuna et al v Bayer Corporation et al
ORDER granting 33 Motion to Dismiss WITH prejudice. The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss WITH prejudice as to the claims of plaintiffs Tamiko Hardy, Angela Justice, and Ciera Teal. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to ENTER JUDGMENT refle cting the same at THE CLOSE OF THE CASE. The motion to dismiss as to the remaining plaintiffs has been withdrawn and is denied as moot.Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 7/16/2013. (dsw) Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 7/16/2013. (dsw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN RE: YASMIN AND YAZ
(DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
MDL No. 2100
This Document Relates to:
Diana DeLuna, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-20001-DRH-PMF 1
Keri Griesbach, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-20003-DRH-PMF 2
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”)
This Order applies to plaintiffs Tamiko Hardy, Angela Justice, and Ciera Teal.
This Order applies to plaintiffs Franchesca Martin, Kelli McCrae, Shelli Ness, Amanda Stephens,
and Lauran Ann Wood Only.
The motion to dismiss in Diana DeLuna, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-20001-DRHPMF sought dismissal of the following plaintiffs’ claims: Josephine Flores, Tamiko Hardy, Brenda
Howard, Angela Justice, Meagan Kirk, Kimberly Koerner, and Ciera Teal. The motion was
subsequently withdrawn as to plaintiffs Brenda Howard, Josephine Flores, Meagan Kirk,
Kimberly Koerner. The motion to dismiss in Keri Griesbach, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11cv-20003-DRH-PMF sought dismissal of the following plaintiffs’ claims: Franchesca Martin, Kelli
McCrae, Shelli Ness, Lori Padgett, Brandi Schneider, Amanda Stephens, Kelsey Timbs, Danielle
Williams-Hopkins, Lauran Ann Wood. The motion to dismiss was subsequently withdrawn as to
plaintiffs Lori Padgett, Kelsey Timbs, Danielle Williams-Hopkins, and Brandi Schneider.
On January 26, 2012, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. moved to
dismiss the claims of the subject plaintiffs in the above captioned matters without
prejudice for failure to comply with PFS obligations.
The Court granted the
motion on March 1, 2012.
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
prejudice within 60 days after entry of this Order, the Order will be
converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon defendants’ motion.”
On March 29, 2013, more than a year 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,
To date, despite having ample time to do so, none of the subject plaintiffs in
the above captioned matters have complied with their PFS requirements. Having
considered the motion and the relevant provisions of CMO 12 the Court ORDERS
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 at the close of the case.
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
United States District Court
Date: July 16, 2013
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?