Roquet v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/15/2015. (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
LITIGATION

)
)
)
)
)

3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF
MDL No. 2100

This Document Relates to:
Nicole Root, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-13159-DRH-PMF

Lillan Roquet v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:12-cv-11234-DRH-PMF

Katherine Rygh v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11638-DRH-PMF

Jetaun Sallaz v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10576-DRH-PMF

Holly Sanchez, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10632-DRH-PMF

Michelle Satterwhite v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:13-cv-10356-DRH-PMF

Stephanie Shoucair v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-13619-DRH-PMF

Malinda Smith v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13083-DRH-PMF

Anabelle Soto v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11945-DRH-PMF

Katherine Sowinski v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:10-cv-20387-DRH-PMF

Lana Speck v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:11-cv-20080-DRH-PMF

Caitlin Stevens v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:12-cv-20110-DRH-PMF

Megan Stewart v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:10-cv-20390-DRH-PMF

Sara Todd v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-13152-DRH-PMF

Chrystal Lynette Darbonne Trahan v. Bayer HealthCare No. 3:10-cv-13029-DRH-PMF
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.
Michelle Villanueva v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-13615-DRH-PMF

Jennifer Walther v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-10281-DRH-PMF

Stormy Whisenhunt v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12222-DRH-PMF

Christina Wilkin v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:10-cv-11916-DRH-PMF

Heather Williams v. Bayer Corporation, et al.

No. 3:12-cv-10767-DRH-PMF

Stacey Yates v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

No. 3:11-cv-12529-DRH-PMF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
HERNDON, District Judge:
On February 10, 2015, Bayer filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice,
pursuant to Case Management Order 60 (“CMO 60”), the above captioned
plaintiffs’ claims for failure to submit complete Claim Package Materials. 1
Pursuant to the Court’s local rules, the plaintiffs had 30 days to file a
responsive pleading. None of the above captioned plaintiffs filed a responsive
pleading. At the expiration of the responsive pleading deadline, as is required
1

Pursuant to the “Settlement Agreement,” Exhibit A to CMO 60, plaintiffs enrolled in the Gallbladder Resolution
Program are required to submit to the Claims Administrator all the Claim Package Materials identified in Section
3.03(a) of the Settlement Agreement. Section 3.01 of the Settlement Agreement fixed November 18, 2013 as the
deadline for submission of a complete Claims Package. The subject motion asserts that the plaintiffs have failed to
comply with this requirement.

2

under CMO 60, the motion was considered by Special Master Stephen Saltzburg. 2
On March 25, 2015, Special Master’s Saltzburg’s report and recommendation
relating to the above captioned cases was docketed. In each case, Special Master
Saltzburg found that the subject plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements
of CMO 60 and recommended that the subject plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with
prejudice in accord with the requirements of CMO 60.
The parties were given 14 days to respond or object to Special Master
Saltzburg’s report and recommendation. The deadline for responding or objecting
to the Special Master’s report has expired. None of the above captioned plaintiffs
have responded or objected.
Upon consideration of Bayer’s motion to dismiss, the Special Master’s
report, and the requirements of CMO 60, the Court finds that the above captioned

2

Section VIII of CMO 60 “appoints Professor Stephen Saltzburg as Special Master to hear motions to dismiss
claims that fail to comply with the terms of the Agreement, and to recommend to this Court rulings on such motions,
as specified in the Agreement” (Doc. 2739 p. 8).

3

plaintiffs have failed to comply with CMO 60.
Accordingly, the claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
FURTHER, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
reflecting the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 14th day of April, 2015.

Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2015.04.14
16:20:56 -05'00'
United States District Court

4