Darlington et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING Special Master's Report AND GRANTING 4 MOTION for Order to Dismiss With Prejudice - Plaintiffs Shannon Baxter, Mary Blum, Catherine Standlee Only filed by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Catherine Standlee, Shannon Baxter and Mary Blum terminated. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/24/14. (klh, )

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

------------------------------------------------------------

Judge David R. Herndon

MDL No. 2100

This Document Relates to:
Elizabeth Carrion, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al.
No. 3:12-cv-10704-DRH-PMF 1
Margaret Colson, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No.
3:12-cv-11434-DRH-PMF 2
Elizabeth Barns, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No.
3:13-cv-10371-DRH-PMF 3
Sophia Darlington, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al.
No. 3:13-cv-10372-DRH-PMF 4
Christina Brown, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No.
3:10-cv-11539-DRH-PMF 5
SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
On March 16, 2013, Bayer filed a motion seeking with prejudice dismissal,
of the above captioned plaintiffs’ claims. 6 The motion seeks dismissal, pursuant

1

This order applies to only plaintiff Amber Croxford.
This order applies to only plaintiff Brandi Larmee.
3
This order applies to only plaintiffs Elizabeth Barns, Jennifer Guadalupe, and Cody
Schwerdtfeger.
4
This order applies to only plaintiffs Shannon Baxter, Mary Blum, and Catherine Standlee.
5
This order applies to only plaintiff Katie Williams.
6
On March 16, 2014, Bayer filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice seeking dismissal of the
claims of specified plaintiffs in 19 member actions. Counsel for the plaintiffs in the above
captioned member actions sought leave to withdraw after the motion was filed. Upon granting
2

to Case Management Order 60 (“CMO 60”), for failure to submit any Claim
Package Materials. 7
Pursuant to the Court’s local rules, the plaintiffs had 30 days to file a
responsive pleading. 8 None of the above captioned plaintiffs filed a responsive
pleading. At the expiration of the responsive pleading deadline, as is required
under CMO 60, the motion was considered by Special Master Stephen Saltzburg. 9
On June 3, 2014, Special Master’s Saltzburg’s report and recommendation
relating to the above captioned cases was docketed. 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.
In each case, the parties were given 14 days to respond or object to Special
Master Saltzburg’s report and recommendation. The 14 day deadline for
responding or objecting to the Special Master’s report has expired. None of the
above captioned plaintiffs has responded or objected.

counsels’ motions for leave to withdraw, the Court granted responsive pleading extensions to allow
each plaintiff sufficient time to locate new counsel or proceed pro se. In each case, the responsive
pleading extension has passed and the motions are now ripe for consideration by the undersigned.
7
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.
8
The above captioned plaintiffs, however, received a pleading extension. Despite receiving this
extension, none of the above captioned plaintiffs has filed a timely response.
9
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).

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
plaintiffs have failed to comply with CMO 60. Accordingly, the Court adopts
Special Master Saltzburg’s report and recommendation. The above captioned
plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to comply with
the requirements of CMO 60.
SO ORDERED:

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2014.06.24
09:37:05 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: June 24, 2014