Elrod v. Bayer Corporation et al
| Vivian Elrod |
| Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure, Inc. (f/k/a) Conceptus, Inc., Lindsay Anne Boatwright, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bayer Essure, Inc. |
| 1:2019cv06048 |
| September 9, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Mary M Rowland |
| Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The Court clarifies the order entered on 10/10/19. #22 . First, the court grants plaintiff's motion to stay pending resolution of plaintiff's motion to remand. Plaintiff's motion to remand is to be briefed as follows: response due 11/8/19; reply due 12/6/19. Because the motion to remand challenges the court's jurisdiction, the court stays briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss. #10 . The briefing schedule set on the motion to dismiss #14 is stricken. Further, in light of the stay and the pending motion to remand, the initial status set for 11/6/19 is stricken and reset to 5/6/20 at 9:30am. Mailed notice. (dm, ) |
| Filing 22 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff's Motion to stay #19 pending resolution of the motion to dismiss and motion to remand is granted. Motion to Remand #16 is to be briefed as follows: responses due 11/8/19; replies due 12/6/19. There is no need to appear on 10/15/19. Mailed notice. (dm, ) |
| Filing 21 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Vivian Elrod by Lauren C. Kaplan (Kaplan, Lauren) |
| Filing 20 NOTICE of Motion by Edward A. Wallace for presentment of motion to stay #19 before Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 10/15/2019 at 09:45 AM. (Wallace, Edward) |
| Filing 19 MOTION by Plaintiff Vivian Elrod to stay All Proceedings on Defendant's Motions Pending Ruling on Motion to Remand and Memorandum in Support (Wallace, Edward) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Motion by Edward A. Wallace for presentment of motion to remand #16 before Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 10/15/2019 at 09:45 AM. (Wallace, Edward) |
| Filing 17 MEMORANDUM by Vivian Elrod in support of motion to remand #16 (Wallace, Edward) |
| Filing 16 MOTION by Plaintiff Vivian Elrod to remand (Wallace, Edward) |
| Filing 15 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Vivian Elrod by Edward A. Wallace (Wallace, Edward) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Motion to dismiss to be briefed as follows: response due 10/22/19 and reply due 11/12/19. Defendants' motion for approval to file brief in excess of fifteen pages #9 is granted. Defendants are granted leave to file a brief of up to 25 pages. There is no need to appear on 9/24/19. Plaintiff shall be sure to address the court's jurisdiction and respond to defendants' assertion that Boatwright is named simply to destroy diversity. "A plaintiff typically may choose its own forum, but it may not join a nondiverse defendant simply to destroy diversity jurisdiction. Schwartz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 875, 878 (7th Cir. 1999); Gottlieb v. Westin Hotel Co., 990 F.2d 323, 327 (7th Cir. 1993). The "fraudulent joinder" doctrine, therefore, permits a district court considering removal "to disregard, for jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of certain nondiverse defendants, assume jurisdiction over a case, dismiss the nondiverse defendants, and thereby retain jurisdiction." Mayes, 198 F.3d at 461 (citing Cobb, 186 F.3d at 677-78)." Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 763 (7th Cir. 2009). Mailed notice. (dm, ) |
| Filing 13 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N, #15 Exhibit O, #16 Exhibit P, #17 Exhibit Q, #18 Exhibit R, #19 Exhibit S)(Curtin, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Motion by Elizabeth Catherine Curtin for presentment of motion to dismiss #10 before Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 9/24/2019 at 09:45 AM. (Curtin, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 11 MEMORANDUM by Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in support of motion to dismiss #10 (Curtin, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 10 MOTION by Defendants Bayer Essure, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to dismiss (Curtin, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for leave to file excess pages (Curtin, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Initial status hearing is set for 11/6/19 at 9:30 a.m. No later than five business days before the status hearing, the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Rowland's name and then again on the link entitled 'Initial Status Conference.' The litigants are further ordered to review all of Judge Rowland's standing orders and the information available on her webpage. Mailed notice. (dm, ) |
| Filing 7 MAILED Notice of Removal letter to all counsel of record. (cc, ) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (cc, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cummings. Case assignment: Random assignment. (td, ) |
| Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure, Inc. (f/k/a) Conceptus, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by Michelle Alyce Ramirez (Ramirez, Michelle) |
| Filing 4 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure, Inc. (f/k/a) Conceptus, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Curtin, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure, Inc. (f/k/a) Conceptus, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by Elizabeth Catherine Curtin (Curtin, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Curtin, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, case number (2019L007803) filed by Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure, Inc. (f/k/a) Conceptus, Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-16219333. (Curtin, Elizabeth) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
