Hawkins et al vs. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Filing 35

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NUMBER 25 (12-MD-2385 Doc. 113). Pursuant to CMO No. 25, 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is WITHDRAWN. Further, the following CLAIMS of the Plaintiff are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Manufacturing Defect, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Warranty of Ordinary Use and allegations of joint and several liability. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 2/22/2013. (dsw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) IN RE: PRADAXA (DABIGATRAN ETEXILATE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ) 3:12-md-02385-DRH-SCW ) MDL No. 2385 ) ) ) This Document Relates to: ALL CASES 1 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 25 LIFTING RESPONSIVE PLEADING STAY IN ALL CASES AND RESOLVING PENDING MATTERS IN CERTAIN CASES THAT WERE SUBJECT TO PREVIOUSLY ENTERED RESPONSIVE PLEADING STAY(S) Herndon, Chief Judge: I. Vacating Responsive Pleading Stay(s) On September 12, 2012, the Court issued an order staying all pending motions, including responsive pleading deadlines (12-md-2385 Doc. 25). The Court 1 Section I of this Order, Vacating Responsive Pleading Stay(s), is applicable to all cases. Section II of this order is applicable to those cases specifically identified in section II. To ensure there is no confusion regarding the resolution of motions and issues identified in section II, this Order shall be docketed in the Master Case File and additionally in the individual member actions listed in section II. 1 has also issued responsive pleading stays in individual member actions for motions filed after September 12, 2012 (See 12-cv-60024-DRH-SCW Doc. 24; 12-cv-60091 Doc. 17). The parties have had an opportunity to confer regarding this matter and the Court has determined that the responsive pleading stay is no longer necessary. Accordingly, the Court hereby vacates any and all responsive pleading stays previously issued. All pleadings filed after entry of this order will be subject to the applicable responsive pleading deadlines provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and orders entered by the Undersigned Judge. The Court reminds the parties that that when deadlines provided by CM/ECF conflict with orders of this Court, the Court ordered deadline will always control. See United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Electronic Filing Rules, Rule 3 (The “filer is responsible for calculating the response time under the federal and/or local rules. The date generated by CM/ECF is a guideline only, and, if the Court has ordered the response to be filed on a date certain, the Court's order governs the response deadline.”). The deadlines provided by CM/ECF are generated automatically based on the generic responsive pleading times allowed under the rules and do not consider special circumstances (such as court orders specific to a particular case or issue). 2 II. CASE SPECIFIC MATTERS This Section is Applicable to the Following Member Actions: Richard Herbeck and Shirley Herbeck v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv50004 Robert Stout v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv50008 Mark A. Jackson, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60004 Bobby D. Sessoms and Ruby J. Sessoms v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60012 Helen Jean and John Edward Hawkins v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60021 v. Janet Cornelius, Individually and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Floyd Cornelius Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60022 Thelma Hawthorne v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60024 Garland James Lege and Patricia A. Lege v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60025 3 Jerald R. Radcliff and Debbie Radcliff v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60026 Bertha Bivens, as Next of Kin Estate of Nancy Brummett, Deceased v. Edward Stair, Jr. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60028 Marlene Wright, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Gertrude Eubanks, Deceased v. Vanessa Meuse v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60072 Robert W Geske, Jr. and Olvia Geske v. Tedros Kebede, et al. MDL No. 3:12-cv60091 MDL No. 3:12-cv60027 MDL No. 3:12-cv60030 Pending before the Court are various motions filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“BIPI”) and/or Plaintiff(s) that were subject to the Court’s responsive pleading stay(s). Certain motions, identified below, were filed by the parties but not ruled on in the Southern District of Illinois and/or other transferor courts prior to the creation of MDL No. 2385. The Court finds, and the parties 4 agree, that the following matters be briefed and/or resolved pursuant to the following terms. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders as follows: Case Name/ MDL & Transferor Court Docket # Richard Herbeck & Shirley Herbeck ORDER Docket #10 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed 6/5/2012) is withdrawn. MDL No. 3:12-cv-50004 ILS/3:12cv613 Robert Stout MDL No. 3:12-cv-50008 ILS/3:12cv617 Mark A. Jackson, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, MDL No. 3:12-cv-60004 LAE/2:12cv1389 Bobby D. Sessoms & Ruby J. Sessoms Docket #11 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed 7/6/2012) is withdrawn. BIPI may file a Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and, in the Alternative, Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike within 14 days of the entry of this Order. See S.D. Illinois L.R. 7.1(c), (d). Docket #6 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed 7/6/2012) is withdrawn. MDL No. 3:12-cv-60012 SC/2:12cv01698 5 Helen Jean & John Edward Hawkins MDL No. 3:12-cv-60021 KYE/6:12cv45 Docket #7 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed 4/2/2012) is withdrawn, and the following claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed without prejudice: Manufacturing Defect, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Warranty of “Ordinary Use” and allegations of joint and several liability. Janet Cornelius, Individually and Docket #9 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State as the Administratrix of the Estate a Claim, filed 4/24/2012) is withdrawn, and the of Floyd Cornelius following claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed without prejudice: Manufacturing Defect, MDL No. 3:12-cv-60022 Negligence Per Se, Breach of Warranty of KYE/6:12cv64 “Ordinary Use” and allegations of joint and several liability. Thelma Hawthorne Docket # 22 (Motion to Dismiss Filed by Thelma Hawthorne on 12/21/2012). Responsive pleading is due within 14 days of the entry of this Order. MDL No. 3:12-cv-60024 LAE/2:12cv1203 Garland James Lege & Patricia A. Docket #4 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Lege a Claim, filed 4/3/2012), is withdrawn, and the following claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed MDL No. 3:12-cv-60025 without prejudice: Manufacturing Defect; LAW/6:12cv572 Negligence; Negligence Per Se; Gross Negligence; Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purpose; Breach of Implied Warranty of “Ordinary Use;” Misrepresentation, Suppression of Evidence and Fraud (including Negligent Misrepresentation); Redhibition; Deceptive Trade Practices; and request for Punitive Damages. Jerald R. Radcliff & Debbie Radcliff MDL No. 3:12-cv-60026 OKW/5:12cv266 Docket #9 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed 4/6/2012) is withdrawn, and the following claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed without prejudice: Manufacturing Defect, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Warranty of “Ordinary Use” and allegations of joint and several liability. 6 Bertha Bivens, as Next of Kin Estate of Nancy Brummett, Deceased MDL No. 3:12-cv-60027 TNE/3:12cv103 Edward Stair, Jr. MDL No. 3:12-cv-60028 TNE/3:12cv116 Marlene Wright, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Gertrude Eubanks, Deceased MDL No. 3:12-cv-60030 TNW/2:12cv2262 Docket #8 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed 4/2/2012) is withdrawn, and the following claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed without prejudice: Manufacturing Defect, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Warranty of “Ordinary Use;” Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; claims brought on behalf of Plaintiff on an individual basis; and any request for prejudgment interest. Docket #6 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed 4/9/2012) is withdrawn, and the following claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed without prejudice: Manufacturing Defect, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Warranty of “Ordinary Use;” Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; and any request for prejudgment interest. Docket #7 (Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed 5/9/2012) is withdrawn, and the following claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed without prejudice: Manufacturing Defect, Suppression of Evidence and Fraud, claims brought on behalf of Plaintiff on an individual basis, and any request for prejudgment interest. Docket #10 (Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, filed 6/6/2012) is granted, subject to dismissal of the claims listed above. Vanessa Meuse MDL No. 3:12-cv-60072 FLM/ 3:12-cv-968-J-99 Robert W. Geske, Jr. & Olivia Geske MDL No. 3:12-cv-60091 NVD/ 2:12cv1932 Docket # 8 (Motion to Vacate Order Striking Complaint filed by Vanessa Meuse on 9/24/2012). Responsive pleading is due within 14 days of the entry of this Order. Docket # 16 (Motion to Dismiss filed by Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation on 12/3/2012). Responsive pleading is due within 14 days of the entry of this Order. 7 The Court further orders that BIPI shall have 60 days from the entry of this Order to file an Answer in any of the above-referenced actions in which a responsive pleading is otherwise required. IT IS SO ORDERED. Digitally signed by David R. Herndon Date: 2013.02.22 09:59:08 -06'00' Chief Judge United States District Court Date: February 22, 2013 8

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?