Filed: Aug. 11, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2015
Summary: DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on defendants' motions to dismiss the above captioned plaintiffs' claims with prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 70. None of the above captioned plaintiffs has filed a response. The Court deems each plaintiff's failure to respond as an admission on the merits of the defendants' motion. See S.D. Ill. Local Rule 7.1(c). For the reasons discussed herein the motions are GRANTED. The above captioned plaintiffs' claims a
Summary: DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on defendants' motions to dismiss the above captioned plaintiffs' claims with prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 70. None of the above captioned plaintiffs has filed a response. The Court deems each plaintiff's failure to respond as an admission on the merits of the defendants' motion. See S.D. Ill. Local Rule 7.1(c). For the reasons discussed herein the motions are GRANTED. The above captioned plaintiffs' claims ar..
More
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motions to dismiss the above captioned plaintiffs' claims with prejudice for failure to comply with CMO 70. None of the above captioned plaintiffs has filed a response. The Court deems each plaintiff's failure to respond as an admission on the merits of the defendants' motion. See S.D. Ill. Local Rule 7.1(c). For the reasons discussed herein the motions are GRANTED. The above captioned plaintiffs' claims are dismissed WITH prejudice.
The Court entered CMO 70 (09-2100 Doc. 3634) on February 13, 2015. Among other things, CMO 70 provides a procedure for addressing cases where defendants maintain the plaintiff has not consumed YAZ, Yasmin, or any of the generic equivalents. More specifically, CMO 70 included the following directives:
1. Defendants were instructed to submit a list identifying the subject plaintiffs to lead counsel for the PSC.
2. Lead Counsel for the PSC was instructed to contact the attorneys representing the identified plaintiffs and advise them of the allegation.
3. The attorneys representing the identified plaintiffs were ordered to (1) submit the plaintiff to a deposition confined to the issue of the prescription and taking of the subject matter pharmaceuticals and other oral contraceptives during the relevant time period or (2) submit an affidavit outlining all contraceptives taken by the plaintiff during the relevant time period, the name of the prescriber, and providing a medical release. The deadline for completing this requirement was 30 days from the date of identification by the defendants.
4. Thereafter, plaintiffs who did not take the subject pharmaceuticals were directed to file a voluntary dismissal or show cause why the Court should not summarily dismiss the case.
Defendants submitted the list identifying the subject plaintiffs to lead counsel on April 15, 2015. The above captioned plaintiffs were identified on the list and received notice of the same from Lead Counsel.13 None of the above captioned plaintiffs took any action with regard to CMO 70.
Thereafter, in May 2015, the defendants sent letters to the attorney of record for each of the above captioned plaintiffs regarding CMO 70 obligations and deadlines. The first letter reminded each plaintiff about the requirements of CMO 70 and stated that the subject plaintiff had not provided an affidavit or contacted defendants about dismissing the case. The letter also included a deposition notice. None of the above captioned plaintiffs responded or took any other action with regard to CMO 70. Defendants then sent a second letter. The second letter, once again, reviewed the requirements of CMO 70 and advised that the subject plaintiffs must dismiss or show cause within 21 days. Once again, none of the above captioned plaintiffs responded.
Accordingly, defendants filed the present motion seeking a with prejudice dismissal for failure to comply with CMO 70. Under this Court's local rules, the above captioned plaintiffs had 30 days to respond to the motion for with prejudice dismissal. As previously noted, the time for responding has passed and none of the above captioned plaintiffs have filed a response.
As described above, the above captioned plaintiffs have been given numerous opportunities to comply with CMO 70. Despite repeated notifications and reminders, the subject plaintiffs have made no effort to comply with this Court's orders. In addition, the plaintiffs have completely failed to respond to the subject motions to dismiss.
In light of the above, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court rule or order is warranted. The Court realizes this is a harsh remedy, but the Court takes this course of action having considered the above captioned plaintiffs repeated disregard for their obligations under CMO 70 and complete failure to respond to the subject motions to dismiss.
For the reasons described herein, the above captioned plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice. The dockets shall be revised accordingly. FURTHER, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in accord with the Court's directives as described in the footnotes to this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
