Schafer et al v. Bayer Corporation
Jenna Schafer and Walter Schafer |
Bayer Corporation |
2:2020cv00055 |
October 13, 2020 |
US District Court for the District of Montana |
Brian Morris |
Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
Defendant |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 7, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
|
Filing 13 First MOTION to Dismiss without prejudice Jeffrey Wade Dahood appearing for Plaintiffs Jenna Schafer, Walter Schafer (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order to Dismiss without Prejudice and allowing Plaintiffs to file amended complaint) (Dahood, Jeffrey) |
|
Filing 11 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Brief Jeffrey Wade Dahood appearing for Plaintiffs Jenna Schafer, Walter Schafer (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Dahood, Jeffrey) |
|
Filing 9 Joint MOTION to Vacate Order Setting Preliminary Pretrial Conference and Stay Discovery Lee A. Mickus appearing for Defendant Bayer Corporation (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Proposed Order) (Mickus, Lee) |
|
Filing 7 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Brief Jeffrey Wade Dahood appearing for Plaintiffs Jenna Schafer, Walter Schafer (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Dahood, Jeffrey) |
Filing 6 MOTION Judicial Notice re #4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Lee A. Mickus appearing for Defendant Bayer Corporation (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Premarket Approval Order, #2 Exhibit B - Summary of Safety and Effectiveness, #3 Exhibit C - Essure System PMA Supplements, #4 Exhibit D - Regulatory History, #5 Exhibit E - 2002 Essure Instructions for Use, #6 Exhibit F - 2002 Essure Patient Information Booklet, #7 Exhibit G - 2004 Essure Instructions for Use, #8 Exhibit H - 2004 Essure Patient Information Booklet, #9 Exhibit I - FDA Activities) (Mickus, Lee) |
|
Filing 4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Lee A. Mickus appearing for Defendant Bayer Corporation (Attachments: #1 Bayer's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, #2 Bayer's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of its Motion to Dismiss, #3 Exhibit A - Premarket Approval Order, #4 Exhibit B - Summary of Safety and Effectiveness, #5 Exhibit C - Essure System PMA Supplements, #6 Exhibit D - Regulatory History, #7 Exhibit E - 2002 Essure Instructions for Use, #8 Exhibit F - 2002 Essure Patient Information Booklet, #9 Exhibit G - 2004 Essure Instructions for Use, #10 Exhibit H - 2004 Essure Patient Information Booklet, #11 Exhibit I - FDA Activities) (Mickus, Lee) |
Remark: With regard to the Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4), filed this date, Counsel is reminded that pursuant to L.R. 7.1(d)(1)(A), "... Briefs in support of a motion must be filed separately from the motion". The documents do not need to be refiled; this is for future reference. Please contact the Clerk's Office with any questions. Thank you. (SLR) |
Filing 3 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (State Court) against Bayer Corporation, filed by Jenna Schafer, Walter Schafer. (SLR) |
Filing 2 NOTICE re #1 Notice of Removal from Montana Third Judicial District Court, Anaconda - Deer Lodge County, consisting of State Court documents. (SLR) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Bayer Corporation from Montana Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County, case number DV-19-53. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A1, #3 Exhibit A2, #4 Exhibit A3) (MMS) |
Filing fee: $ 400.00, receipt number 0977-2557294 (MMS) |
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 Montana 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.