Bailog v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 7/22/15. (rah)

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
MDL No. 2100

-----------------------------------------------------------Judge David R. Herndon

This Document Relates to:

Parker-Lawnsby et al v. Bayer Corporation, et
al. No. 3:11-cv-12099-DRH-PMF 1
Doherty v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals
Inc., et al No. 3:12-cv-10231-DRH-PMF
Redricks et al v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al No. 3:13-cv-10537DRH-PMF 2
Lewis v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals
Inc., et al No. 3:13-cv-10566-DRH-PMF
Glover v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals
Inc., et al No. 3:13-cv-10640-DRH-PMF
Bailog v. Bayer Corporation No. 3:14-cv-10368DRH-PMF
Jones et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al No. 3:14-cv-10162DRH-PMF 3
Banks et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al No. 3:14-cv-10171DRH-PMF 4
1

This Order of dismissal applies only to plaintiff Brandi Manning’s claims. However, as all other
plaintiffs have previously been dismissed, this matter will be dismissed in its entirety.
2
This Order of dismissal applies only to plaintiff Genise Key’s claims.
3
This Order of dismissal applies only to plaintiff Schkaylle Marshall’s claims.
4
This Order of dismissal applies only to plaintiff Megan Evans’ claims.

Page 1 of 3

DeGrazia et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al No. 3:14-cv-10215DRH-PMF 5
Goines et al. v. Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al No. 3:14-cv-10223DRH-PMF 6
Ellis et al. v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals
Inc., et al No. 3:14-cv-10234-DRH-PMF7
ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s (Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.) motions for an order dismissing the above captioned
plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice for failure to file an appearance as required by
this Court’s Order and Local Rule 83.1(g)(2).
In each of the above captioned cases, the Court granted a motion to
withdraw filed by counsel. The orders granting leave to withdraw expressly
provided that if the subject plaintiff (or her new counsel) failed to file a timely
supplementary entry of appearance, the action would be subject to dismissal
without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to
prosecute or to comply with the orders of this Court. To date, and in violation of
this Court’s orders and Local Rule 83.1(g), the above captioned plaintiffs have not
filed a supplementary appearance. In addition, the above captioned plaintiffs have
not responded to the pending motions to dismiss.
5
6
7

This Order of dismissal applies only to plaintiff Christine DeGrazia's claims.
This Order of dismissal applies only to plaintiff Sylvia Goines’ claims.
This Order of dismissal applies only to plaintiff Stephanie Scroggins’ claims.

Page 2 of 3

The plaintiffs must comply with the Local Rules and this Court’s orders.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the claims of the
above captioned plaintiffs are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to revise the dockets accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 22nd day of July, 2015.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2015.07.22
12:52:19 -05'00'
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3