Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gomez v. McKesson Corporation, 3:12-cv-02816-WQH-NLS. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160307550 Visitors: 31
Filed: Mar. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ELI LILLY AND COMPANY ONLY WILLIAM Q. HAYES , District Judge . The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss the claims of certain Plaintiffs ("Dismissed Plaintiffs") against Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly") in this action. Being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 2. This dismissal is without prejudice for 60 days from the date of the
More

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ELI LILLY AND COMPANY ONLY

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss the claims of certain Plaintiffs ("Dismissed Plaintiffs") against Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly") in this action. Being sufficiently advised, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

1. The parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

2. This dismissal is without prejudice for 60 days from the date of the entry of the order on this motion (the "Order").

3. Between the date of the Order and 60 days from the date of the Order, a Dismissed Plaintiff must refile in the appropriate United States District Court located in Plaintiff's home jurisdiction should they choose to reassert a claim against Lilly. Any such complaint must include as an exhibit evidentiary support of the Dismissed Plaintiff's use of product manufactured or sold by Lilly.

4. For any complaint filed pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 2 above, (a) all defenses to which Lilly was entitled as of the effective date of the original complaint in this action against Lilly are preserved, and (b) Lilly may not assert any statute of limitations defense based solely on the passage of time between the effective date of the original complaint against Lilly and the filing of the complaint pursuant to Paragraph 2 above.

5. If a Dismissed Plaintiff does not file a new complaint pursuant to Paragraph 2 above, this dismissal will automatically become a dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), effective on the 61st day after the date of the entry of the Order, without further court order.

6. Each party will bear his, her, or its own fees and costs.

7. The Dismissed Plaintiffs are the following:

DISMISSED PLAINTIFFS James Daugherty Sandra Daugherty Deborah Davidson Ralph Davidson Rollie Deckard Georgia Lee Deckard James Dicarlo Evelyn Dicarlo Drew Dieterich Mary Dieterich Dorothy Dose John Dose Clarence Doty Jeannie Doty Edward Lentzx Dreikorn, II Jennifer Dreikorn Cordell Duke Norma Duke George Dunn Linda Dunn Delores Ann Eller Robert Eller Daniel Encinas DISMISSED PLAINTIFFS Sandra Encinas Earl Femea Joanne Femea Edna Flanagan Edward Flanagan Beverly Fleck Howard Fleck James Fleetwood Joan Fleetwood Daniel Fluharty Terry Fluharty George Fox Rhesa Mae Fox Archie Franz Joan Franz Dona Frazier John Frazier

8. The claims of the following Plaintiffs against Lilly in the above-captioned action remain pending:

REMAINING PLAINTIFFS Derrall Daniel Lechia Daniel Fred Donze Louise Donze Doyle Dunn Janice Dunn Eugene Fields Patricia Ann Fields Dixie Gomez Florentino Gomez-Gonzalez
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer