IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20140425748
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Bayer Defendants' motions for an order dismissing the above captioned plaintiffs' claims without prejudice for failure to file an appearance as required by this Court's Order and Local Rule 83.1(g)(2). In each of the above captioned cases, the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by counsel. The orders granting leave to withdraw expressly provided that if the subject p
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Bayer Defendants' motions for an order dismissing the above captioned plaintiffs' claims without prejudice for failure to file an appearance as required by this Court's Order and Local Rule 83.1(g)(2). In each of the above captioned cases, the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by counsel. The orders granting leave to withdraw expressly provided that if the subject pl..
More
ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Bayer Defendants' motions for an order dismissing the above captioned plaintiffs' claims without prejudice for failure to file an appearance as required by this Court's Order and Local Rule 83.1(g)(2).
In each of the above captioned cases, the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by counsel. The orders granting leave to withdraw expressly provided that if the subject plaintiff (or her new counsel) failed to file a timely supplementary entry of appearance, the action would be subject to dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or to comply with the orders of this Court including failure to comply with the Plaintiff Fact Sheet requirements. To date, and in violation of this Court's orders and Local Rule 83.1(g), the above captioned plaintiffs have not filed a supplementary appearance. In addition, none of the above captioned plaintiffs have responded to the instant motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs must comply with the Local Rules and this Court's orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the claims of the above captioned plaintiffs are hereby dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED:
FootNotes
1. This order applies to plaintiff Victoria Melton only
2. This order applies to plaintiff Danielle Buchanan only.
3. This order applies to plaintiff Marlo Duffy only.
Source: Leagle
