Porges et al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, No. 3:2011cv13303 - Document 7 (S.D. Ill. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. This member action is dismissed Without Prejudice for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet requirements. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 11/2/2012. (dsw)

Download PDF

Porges et al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al Doc. 7 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: Jennifer Adams v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10114-DRH-PMF Jessica and Cheyenne Allen v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13141-DRH-PMF Kim Allen v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10251-DRH-PMF Brittany Bagnall v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13557-DRH-PMF Julie Baker v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13569-DRH-PMF Christina Berninger v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10064-DRH-PMF Emily Berry v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10118-DRH-PMF Courtney Bigel v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13405-DRH-PMF Rebecca Boren v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13604-DRH-PMF Tara and Michael Burns v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10065-DRH-PMF Katherine Campbell v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10161-DRH-PMF Dockets.Justia.com Jillian Carpenter v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10269-DRH-PMF Laquita Coates v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10144-DRH-PMF Deborah Cobb v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10090-DRH-PMF Nicole Daigle v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13466-DRH-PMF Shelley Darby v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13302-DRH-PMF Christina DiPierro v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10062-DRH-PMF Jennifer Dombrowski v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13556-DRH-PMF Christine Dorries v. Bayer Corp., et al. No. 3:11-cv-12629-DRH-PMF Tunisia Fitch v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10038-DRH-PMF Ana Gadsby v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13562-DRH-PMF Anissa Gallifent v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10155-DRH-PMF Kimberly and John Hasenberg v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13305-DRH-PMF Elizabeth Howard v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13576-DRH-PMF Monisce James v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10182-DRH-PMF Jolene Jaquez v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13422-DRH-PMF 2 Cheryl Kan v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13419-DRH-PMF Rebecca Kinsey v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13463-DRH-PMF Karen Kirk v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10115-DRH-PMF Melissa Laws v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13464-DRH-PMF Amber Melvin v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13312-DRH-PMF Amanda Montgomery v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13577-DRH-PMF Nicole Padilla v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13467-DRH-PMF Deshinae Petetant v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13432-DRH-PMF Sonya and Martin Porges v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13303-DRH-PMF Caurie Putnam v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10117-DRH-PMF Carole Reed v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13496-DRH-PMF Laura Rencher v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13613-DRH-PMF Chantelle Sawyer v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10036-DRH-PMF Lisa Shortridge v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10043-DRH-PMF Ashley Trejo v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10057-DRH-PMF 3 Debra Ward v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:12-cv-10041-DRH-PMF Chiquita Warren v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13306-DRH-PMF Whitney Wauters v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13618-DRH-PMF Kate Wilson v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 3:11-cv-13313-DRH-PMF ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Failure To Comply With PFS Obligations) HERNDON, Chief Judge This matter is before the Court on the Bayer defendants’ motion, pursuant to Case Management Order 12 (“CMO 12”) 1 for an order of dismissal, without prejudice, of the plaintiffs’ claims in the above captioned cases for failure to comply with Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) obligations. Under Section C of CMO 12, each plaintiff is required to serve defendants with a completed PFS, including a signed declaration, executed record release authorizations, and copies of all documents subject to the requests for production contained in the PFS which are in the possession of plaintiff. Section B of CMO 12 further provides that a completed PFS is due “45 days from the date of service of the first answer to her Complaint or the docketing of her case in this MDL, or 45 days from the date of this Order, whichever is later.” 1 The Parties negotiated and agreed to CMO 12, which expressly provides that the discovery required of plaintiffs is not objectionable. CMO 12 § A(2). 4 Accordingly, Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters were to have served completed PFSs on or before June 22, 2012. 10114-DRH-PMF Doc. 6-1). 2 (See e.g., Adams No. 3:12-cv- Per Section E of CMO 12, Notice of Overdue Discovery was sent on or before July 17, 2012. (See e.g., Adams No. 3:12-cv10114-DRH-PMF Doc. 6-2). 3 As of the filing of Bayer’s motion to dismiss, Bayer still had not received completed PFS materials from the plaintiffs in the abovecaptioned matters. As of the filing of this order, the above captioned plaintiffs PFS materials are more than three months overdue. Under Section E of CMO 12, the plaintiffs were given 14 days from the date of Bayer’s motion, in this case 14 days from September 25, 2012, to file a response either certifying that they served upon defendants and defendants received a completed PFS, and attaching appropriate documentation of receipt or an opposition to defendant’s motion. 4 2 Identical motions were filed in each of the above captioned cases. For ease of reference the Court refers to the motion and exhibits filed in Adams No. 3:12-cv10114-DRH-PMF Docs. 6, 6.1, 6.2). 3 A similar case specific notice of over-due discovery was sent to each of the subject plaintiffs and is attached as an exhibit to Bayer’s motion to dismiss in each of the above captioned member actions. 4 Responses to Bayer’s motion to dismiss were due 14 days from September 25, 2012 regardless of any response date automatically generated by CM/ECF. The Court has previously noted in orders in this MDL and during a status conference in this MDL that when deadlines provided by CM/ECF conflict with orders of this Court, the Court ordered deadline will always control. See United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Electronic Filing Rules, Rule 3 (The “filer is responsible for calculating the response time under the federal and/or local rules. The date generated by CM/ECF is a guideline only, and, if the Court has ordered the response to be filed on a date certain, the Court's order governs the response deadline.”). The deadlines provided by CM/ECF are generated automatically based on the generic responsive pleading 5 To date, none of the plaintiffs in the above captioned member actions has filed a response. Because the plaintiffs have failed to respond to Bayer’s allegations, the Court finds that these plaintiffs have failed to comply with their PFS obligations under CMO 12. Accordingly, the claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Court reminds plaintiffs that, pursuant to CMO 12 Section E, unless plaintiffs serve the defendants with a COMPLETED PFS or move to vacate the dismissal without prejudice within 60 days after entry of this Order, the Order will be converted to a Dismissal With Prejudice upon defendants’ motion. So Ordered: Digitally signed by David R. Herndon Date: 2012.11.02 10:13:39 -05'00' Chief Judge United States District Court Date: November 2, 2012 times allowed under the rules and do not consider special circumstances (such as court orders specific to a particular case or issue). 6

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.