Bradley Blansette v. Bayer Corporation, No. 20-1591 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff's member action in an MDL case as a sanction for plaintiff's failure to comply with the case management order.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1591 ___________________________ Bradley R. Blansette lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Bayer Corporation; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Bayer AG; Bayer Pharma AG; Merck & Company, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees, ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: November 25, 2020 Filed: December 3, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Bradley Blansette appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of his member action in a multi-district litigation (MDL) for failure to comply with a case 1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. management order. Upon careful review, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Blansette’s action with prejudice, or in denying the motion for dismissal without prejudice. See Freeman v. Wyeth, 764 F.3d 806, 810 (8th Cir. 2014) (MDL judge has greater discretion to create and enforce deadlines in order to administer litigation effectively, including power to dismiss cases where litigants do not follow court’s orders); Siems v. City of Minneapolis, 560 F.3d 824, 826 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharms., Inc., 187 F.3d 941, 950 (8th Cir. 1999) (party may not dismiss merely to avoid adverse decision or seek more favorable forum). We also find no error in the denial of Blansette’s motion for the court to determine his settlement eligibility. See In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 14 F.3d 726, 731 (2d Cir. 1993) (courts lack authority to compel parties to settle their cases). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
