ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) and 21 motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed in accord with Case Management Order Number 70 ("CMO 70") (MDL 210 Doc. 3634). The defendants move the Court to sever and dismiss plaintiff Jeanette Beckwith's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In accord with CMO 70, the plaintiff was given 14 days to respond. The plaintiff has failed to respond in any way to the defendants' motion. The Court deems the failure to respond to be an admission of the merits of the motion. SDIL-LR 7.1(c).

It is evident that diversity jurisdiction is lacking. In the instant case, plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Defendant Bayer Corporation is also a citizen of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, complete diversity is lacking. See Wisconsin Dep't of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998) (Breyer, J.) (complete diversity exists "only if there is no plaintiff and no defendant who are citizens of the same state").

A district court has the authority, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, "to allow a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped at any time, even after judgment has been rendered" for the purpose of maintaining diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832, 109 S.Ct. 2218, 104 L.Ed.2d 893 (1989) (Marshall, J.).2

Because plaintiff's claims destroy complete diversity, the defendants' motion to sever and dismiss is GRANTED. The claims of plaintiff Beckwith are severed pursuant to Rule 21 and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.