Adams et al v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

Filing 89

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated February 13, 2013 81 . 2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment 56 is GRANTED. 3. Pla intiff's cross-motion to stay Defendants' motion for summary judgment pending discovery 65 is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 4/19/13. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN RE: MIRAPEX PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL File No. 07-1836 (MJD/FLN)

This document relates to:
MARC MANCINI,
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER
Civil File No. 10-5009 (MJD/FLN)

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Jasper D. Ward and William D. Nefzger, Bahe Cook Cantley & Jones, PLC,
Counsel for Plaintiff.
Scott A. Smith and Tracy J. Van Steenburgh, Nilan Johnson Lewis P.A., and
Bruce R. Parker and Jason C. Rose, Venable LLP, Counsel for Defendant
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Joseph M. Price and Lariss Jude, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, and Lori B. Leskin,
Kaye Scholler, Counsel for Defendants Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia Corporation, and
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC.

1

The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated
February 13, 2013. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Noel dated February 13, 2013.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated February 13, 2013 [Docket No.
81].
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 56] is
GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s cross-motion to stay Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment pending discovery [Docket No. 65] is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated: April 19, 2013

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court

2