Prudden v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al
| Christina L Prudden |
| Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. |
| 5:2022cv06074 |
| June 16, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Brian C Wimes |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
RULE 16 NOTICE. Proposed scheduling order due by 9/6/2022. Scheduling Conference set for 9/20/2022 11:00 AM by telephone before District Judge Brian C. Wimes. Signed on 8/5/22 by District Judge Brian C. Wimes. (Diefenbach, Tracy)
|
| Filing 11 SUGGESTIONS in support re #10 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Charles R Brown on behalf of Defendants Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Index Index of Exhibits, #2 Exhibit A - Cleveland Clinic, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, #3 Exhibit B - CDC, Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Safety Information, #4 Exhibit C - Gardasil Package Insert, #5 Exhibit D - National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Human Papillomavirus Vaccines, #6 Exhibit E -FDA Approval Letter for Gardasil 9, #7 Exhibit F - CDC, HPV Vaccination is Safe and Effective, #8 Exhibit G - CDC, Reasons to Get HPV Vaccine, #9 Exhibit H - CDC, Human Papillomavirus Vaccination & Cancer Prevention, #10 Exhibit I - CDC, Basic Information About HPV and Cancer, #11 Exhibit J - CDC, Cancers Caused by HPV Are Preventable, #12 Exhibit K - WHO, Health Topics - Cervical Cancer, #13 Exhibit L - CDC, HPV Vaccine, #14 Exhibit M - FDA, Gardasil Vaccine Safety, #15 Exhibit N - CDC, Questions About HPV Vaccine Safety, #16 Exhibit O - WHO, Safety of HPV Vaccines, #17 Exhibit P - WHO, Global Strategy to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer as a Public Health Problem, #18 Exhibit Q - European Medicines Agency, HPV Vaccines: EMA Confirms Evidence Does Not Support that they Cause CRPS or POTS, #19 Exhibit R - CDC, HPV Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness, #20 Exhibit S - FDA, FDA Information on Gardasil Presence of DNA Fragments Expected, No Safety Risk)(Related document(s) #10 ) (Brown, Charles) |
| Filing 10 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Charles R Brown on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/18/2022 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Brown, Charles) |
| Filing 9 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by Charles R Brown on behalf of Defendants Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp..(Brown, Charles) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER granting #7 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Dino Sangiamo for Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney. Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at #PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Berner, Crystal)
|
| Filing 7 Motion to allow Dino S. Sangiamo to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-8043012) filed by Denise Fields on behalf of All Defendants. (Fields, Denise) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of appearance by Charles R Brown on behalf of All Defendants (Attorney Charles R Brown added to party Merck & Co., Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Charles R Brown added to party Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.(pty:dft))(Brown, Charles) |
|
Filing 5
ORDERED Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint (Doc. #4) is, with Plaintiff having no objection, GRANTED. Defendants are granted leave to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before August 4, 2022. In the future, motions of this type are properly filed at least three days before the filing deadline established by rule or Court Order. Signed on 7/20/2022 by District Judge Brian C. Wimes. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for extension of time to file answer Unopposed filed by Denise Fields on behalf of Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/1/2022 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attorney Denise Fields added to party Merck & Co., Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Denise Fields added to party Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.(pty:dft))(Fields, Denise) |
| Filing 3 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christina L Prudden. Merck & Co., Inc. served on 6/29/2022, answer due 7/20/2022; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. served on 6/29/2022, answer due 7/20/2022. (Gelfand, Justin) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.. (Ellis, Lindsey) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF INCLUSION FOR MEDIATION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MAP). REVIEW NOTICE AND MAP GENERAL ORDER CAREFULLY FOR DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS.Notice of MAP assignment to United States Magistrate Judge Jill A. Morris. (Attachments: #1 MAP General Order)(Melvin, Greg) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Christina Prudden Christina Prudden. Filing fee $402, receipt number AMOWDC-7981140. Service due by 9/14/2022 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gelfand, Justin) |
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 Missouri Western 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.
