Sheldon, Jr. v. Davol, Inc. et al, No. 2:2020cv05368 - Document 6 (S.D. Ohio 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 3 Motion to Dismiss. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 3/17/2022. (cmw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sheldon, Jr. v. Davol, Inc. et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case No. 2:18-md-2846 IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, INC., POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson This document relates to: Sheldon v. CR Bard et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-5368 OPINION AND ORDER On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff Raymond Sheldon, Jr. filed a complaint in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to this Court’s Case Management Order (“CMO”) No. 8, “[e]ach Plaintiff in an action in MDL 2846 shall complete and serve upon Defendants via email a completed [Patient Profile Form (“PPF”)] . . . along with all duly executed authorizations for the release of relevant medical records, within 60 days after Defendants serve their Short Form Answer upon a Plaintiff.” (Case No. 18-md-2846, ECF No. 57 at PageID #895.) Defendants filed their Short Form Answer on January 29, 2021. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff did not produce a PPF within 60 days as required by CMO No. 8 and has not corrected this defect over one year later. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the case based on Plaintiff’s failure to produce a PPF. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on August 16, 2021. (ECF No. 4.) On February 15, 2022, the Court issued an order notifying Plaintiff that the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was insufficient under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendants had already filed an answer. (Id.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a motion to dismiss or a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties by March 14, 2022, and informed Plaintiff that if he did not file an appropriate motion or stipulation the Court would rule 1 Dockets.Justia.com on Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed neither a motion to dismiss nor a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3/17/2022 DATE s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
