McCall et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING 7 MOTION for Order to Dismiss With Prejudice - All Plaintiffs filed by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.., Becky Milkovitz, Rebecca Monahan, Dana Moore, Lisa McCall and Katie McLean terminated.Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/24/14. (klh, )

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:

Kaitlyn Lester, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 1

No. 3:11-cv-13373-DRH-PMF

Dawn Lindley, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 2

No. 3:11-cv-12574-DRH-PMF

Kimberly Lopez, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 3

No. 3:13-cv-10369-DRH-PMF

Evelyn Masters, et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 4

No. 3:13-cv-10435-DRH-PMF

Michelle Maynard, et al v. Bayer Schering
Pharma AG, et al. 5

No. 3:11-cv-10337-DRH-PMF

Lisa McCall, et al v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 6

No. 3:13-cv-10492-DRH-PMF

Jessica McDaniel, et al v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 7

No. 3:13-cv-10096-DRH-PMF

Victoria Melton, et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 8

No. 3:10-cv-13664-DRH-PMF

Carrie Miller, et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 9

No. 3:13-cv-10475-DRH-PMF

Jamie Milligan, et al v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 10

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

1

This order applies to only plaintiff Betty Glover.
This order applies to only plaintiff Paula Muscarella.
3
This order applies to only plaintiff Stephanie Figueroa.
4
This order applies to only plaintiff Misty Grantham.
5
This order applies to only plaintiff Aurora Abousaid.
6
This order applies to all plaintiffs in the McCall case: Lisa McCall, Katie McLean, Becky
Milkovitz, Rebecca Monahan, and Dana Moore.
7
This order applies to only plaintiff Sindyrell Johnson.
8
This order applies to only plaintiff Victoria Melton.
9
This order applies to all plaintiffs in the Miller case: Carrie Miller, Danielle Miller, Amanda
Mosley, Carmen Richerson, and Rebecca Sande.
2

Dawnette Montes, et al v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 11

No. 3:10-cv-20265-DRH-PMF

Julie Mora, et al v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 12

No. 3:13-cv-10496-DRH-PMF

Allicia Myers, et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 13

No. 3:13-cv-10474-DRH-PMF

Rebecca Parker, et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 14

No. 3:13-cv-10480-DRH-PMF

Zaida Perez, et al v. Bayer Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, et al. 15

No. 3:10-cv-12240-DRH-PMF

Tawnya Portwood, et al v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 16

No. 3:12-cv-11405-DRH-PMF

Leslie Rhinehart, et al v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 17

No. 3:11-cv-13555-DRH-PMF

Yvonne Richardson Campbell, et al v. Bayer
Corporation, et al. 18

No. 3:11-cv-12333-DRH-PMF

Sara Roberson, et al v. Bayer Corporation, et al. 19

No. 3:13-cv-10499-DRH-PMF

Jade Ruiz, et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. 20

No. 3:13-cv-10479-DRH-PMF

10

This order applies to only plaintiff April Cabrera.
This order applies to only plaintiff Kelly Blalock.
12
This order applies to only plaintiffs Rachelle Niell, Katie Patridge, and Cassandra Richardson.
13
This order applies to all plaintiffs in the Allicia Myers case: Allicia Myers, Rachel Simpkins,
Tessa Strange, Jennifer Vasquez, and Beatriz Zamarripa.
14
This order applies to only plaintiffs Rebecca Parker, Huckleberry Rarh, Danielle Rhodes, and
Erika Rolbiecki.
15
This order applies to only plaintiff Katie McClaren.
16
This order applies to only plaintiff Britney Lewis.
17
This order applies to only plaintiff Lorelei Holm.
18
This order applies to only plaintiff Yvonne Richardson Campbell.
19
This order applies to only plaintiffs Sara Roberson, Nahathie Rodriguez, Jennifer Soule, and
Caitlin Strole.
20
This order applies to all plaintiffs in the Jade Ruiz case: Jade Ruiz, Angie Still, Myisha
Thomas, Lauren Topolosky, and Jennifer Walter.
11

2

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
On April 25, 2014, Bayer filed a motion seeking with prejudice dismissal, of
the above captioned plaintiffs’ claims. The motion seeks dismissal, pursuant to
Case Management Order 60 (“CMO 60”), for failure to submit any Claim Package
Materials. 21
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. 22 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

21

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.
22
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

responding or objecting to the Special Master’s report has expired. None of the
above captioned plaintiffs has 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 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
09:34:09 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Date: June 24, 2014

4