Berdahl v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/8/2015. (dsw

Download PDF

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: Tracey Alimenti v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13403-DRH-PMF Tarah M. Aly v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-11309-DRH-PMF Alyssa Anderson-Ruff, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10221-DRH-PMF Hayden N. Baird v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:13-cv-10364-DRH-PMF Leslie Baugh v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10469-DRH-PMF Kori Berdahl v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:13-cv-10443-DRH-PMF Dawn Marie Bergold v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:11-cv-12517-DRH-PMF Angela Billings v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12076-DRH-PMF Molly Bonner v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12172-DRH-PMF Tiffany Brown v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13395-DRH-PMF Kati Bryda v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-13219-DRH-PMF Linda Cherie Buchanan v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10872-DRH-PMF Rachelle Bull v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:13-cv-10311-DRH-PMF Lacey Bunter v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-11055-DRH-PMF Elizabeth Burnett v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-12986-DRH-PMF Michelle Callahan v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-11080-DRH-PMF Kelley Callesen v. Bayer Corporation, et al. No. 3:12-cv-11481-DRH-PMF Kayla Carlucci v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:10-cv-11077-DRH-PMF Aeelen Carrera-Ponce, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-10640-DRH-PMF Nicole Case v. Bayer Schering Pharma AG No. 3:10-cv-10871-DRH-PMF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE HERNDON, District Judge: On November 13, 2014, 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 under CMO 60, the motion was considered by Special Master Stephen Saltzburg.2 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 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). 2 On December 22, 2014, 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 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 8th day of January, 2015. David R. Herndon 2015.01.08 16:24:20 -06'00' United States District Judge 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?