Lyles v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. The action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 3/3/2015. (dsw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ------------------------------------------------------------ X IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF MDL No. 2100 -----------------------------------------------------------Judge David R. Herndon This Document Relates to: Tara Montoya v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:10-cv-13482-DRH-PMF Deborah Kirby v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-12032-DRH-PMF Tamia Baker v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-12689-DRH-PMF Sara Cusick v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12817DRH-PMF Mary A. Mack v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13052DRH-PMF Centrel Carter v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-13075-DRH-PMF Kelley Pinkerton v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13116DRH-PMF Brianna Christine Lyles v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-20007-DRH-PMF Phil Gallo, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-20176DRH-PMF Page 1 of 3 Maria Calderon v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-10294-DRH-PMF Gay Hunt v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12cv-11024-DRH-PMF Lauren Jessica Taylor v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-11483-DRH-PMF Jennifer Hamilton Anderson v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-11570-DRHPMF Addie Chadwell v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:13-cv-10045-DRH-PMF Delfina Collier v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:13-cv-10630-DRH-PMF Felicia Rosa v. Bayer HealthCare No. Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 3:13-cv-10706DRH-PMF Latika Threatt v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:13-cv-10791-DRH-PMF Candyce Meeks v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:13-cv-10815DRH-PMF ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE HERNDON, District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Bayer Defendants’ motions for an order dismissing the above captioned plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for failure to file an appearance as required by this Court’s Order and Local Rule 83.1(g)(2). Page 2 of 3 In each of the above captioned cases, the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by counsel. The orders granting leave to withdraw expressly provided that if the subject plaintiff (or her new counsel) failed to file a timely supplementary entry of appearance, the action would be subject to dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or to comply with the orders of this Court. To date, and in violation of this Court’s orders and Local Rule 83.1(g), the above captioned plaintiffs have not filed a supplementary appearance. In addition, none of the above captioned plaintiffs have responded to the instant motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs must comply with the Local Rules and this Court’s orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are hereby dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 3rd day of March, 2015. Digitally signed by David R. Herndon Date: 2015.03.03 09:50:13 -06'00' United States District Court Page 3 of 3

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?