Milligan et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice as to plaintiffs Sarahann Davis and Devin Snyder only. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same at the close of the case. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/13/2013. (dsw)

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:
Breanna Jurgens, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. 1

No. 3:12-cv-10526-DRH-PMF

Jamie Milligan, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. 2

No. 3:12-cv-10699-DRH-PMF

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”)
obligations.
On September 26, 2012, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. moved to
dismiss the above captioned matters without prejudice for failure to comply with
PFS obligations. The Court granted the motion on December 4, 2012.
In the order dismissing the above captioned actions, the Court warned the
plaintiffs that, “pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless plaintiffs serve
1
2

This motion applies only to plaintiff Patrycja Wojtas.
This motion applies only to plaintiffs Sarahann Davis and Devin Snyder.

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 28, 2013, approximately four months 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, none of the above captioned plaintiffs have taken any steps to cure
their PFS deficiencies, to address the without prejudice dismissal, or to reply to
the motion for dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiffs have had ample time to
cure the any PFS deficiencies and avoid a with prejudice dismissal.
Having considered the motion and the relevant provisions of CMO 12 the
Court ORDERS as follows:
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

2

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.
SO ORDERED:
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.06.13
16:15:15 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: June 13, 2013

3