IN RE PRADAXA (DABIGATRAN ETEXILATE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 2385. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20151015988
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Motion for Permission To Inspect Master Settlement Agreement And Filings With The Claims Administrator On Behalf Of Their Deceased Father, Anthony Ougle, Sr. And For Extension Of Time To File A Notice With The Court Stating Whether Or Not Movants Are Asserting Mr. Ougle's Signature On The Release Is Not Authentic (Doc. 23); and (2) Motion for Expedited Hearing (Doc. 25). Defendant, Boehr
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Motion for Permission To Inspect Master Settlement Agreement And Filings With The Claims Administrator On Behalf Of Their Deceased Father, Anthony Ougle, Sr. And For Extension Of Time To File A Notice With The Court Stating Whether Or Not Movants Are Asserting Mr. Ougle's Signature On The Release Is Not Authentic (Doc. 23); and (2) Motion for Expedited Hearing (Doc. 25). Defendant, Boehri..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Motion for Permission To Inspect Master Settlement Agreement And Filings With The Claims Administrator On Behalf Of Their Deceased Father, Anthony Ougle, Sr. And For Extension Of Time To File A Notice With The Court Stating Whether Or Not Movants Are Asserting Mr. Ougle's Signature On The Release Is Not Authentic (Doc. 23); and (2) Motion for Expedited Hearing (Doc. 25). Defendant, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("BIPI") has responded (Doc. 26).
Movants' motions seek to relitigate matters already decided by the Court. The Court agrees with BIPI, the Court has already considered and ruled on Movants' arguments. The Court will not further prolong this case while movants decide whether to accept the settlement money or contest the Release as a forgery. As previously explained, the settlement in this case is final. Movants' request to intervene will be denied absent notification that the Movants intend to contest the Release as a forgery through an evidentiary hearing before this Court (Doc. 21). Movants have until October 16, 2015 to inform their Court as to their position on contesting the signature on the Release (Doc. 21).
The present motions (Doc. 23 and Doc. 25) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
