Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01907/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01907-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS MITCHELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al, 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01907-LJO-SKO

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION TO DISMISS THE 

CLAIMS OF CERTAIN 

PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ELI 

LILLY AND COMPANY ONLY

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss the claims of certain 

Plaintiffs ("Dismissed Plaintiffs") against Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly") in this 

action. Being sufficiently advised, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

1. The parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

2. This dismissal is without prejudice for 60 days from the date of the 

entry of the order on this motion (the "Order").

3. Between the date of the Order and 60 days from the date of the Order, 

a Dismissed Plaintiff must refile in the appropriate United States District Court 

located in Plaintiff’s home jurisdiction should they choose to reassert a claim 

against Lilly. Any such complaint must include as an exhibit evidentiary support 

of the Dismissed Plaintiff's use of product manufactured or sold by Lilly.

4. For any complaint filed pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 2 above, 

(a) all defenses to which Lilly was entitled as of the effective date of the original 

complaint in this action against Lilly are preserved, and (b) Lilly may not assert 

any statute of limitations defense based solely on the passage of time between the 

Case 1:12-cv-01907-LJO-SKO Document 49 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

effective date of the original complaint against Lilly and the filing of the complaint 

pursuant to Paragraph 2 above. 

5. If a Dismissed Plaintiff does not file a new complaint pursuant to 

Paragraph 2 above, this dismissal will automatically become a dismissal with 

prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), effective on the 61st day 

after the date of the entry of the Order, without further court order. 

6. Each party will bear his, her, or its own fees and costs.

7. The Dismissed Plaintiffs are the following:

DISMISSED PLAINTIFFS

Calogero Gambino

Maria Gambino

Marlene Gano

Richard Gano

Antonio Gonzalez

Carlota Gonzalez

Barbara Goss

Jerry Goss

Jesus Grijalva

Raquel Grijalva

Mary Groll

Steven Groll

Debra Grubbs

Michael Grubbs

Dwayne Haagen

Judie Haagen

Barbara May Hall

David Hall

James Hall

Shirley Hall

Aaron Harris

Patricia Harris

Betty Hartman

Beverly Haynes

Oscar Haynes

Case 1:12-cv-01907-LJO-SKO Document 49 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DISMISSED PLAINTIFFS

Robert Hickman

Sharon Hickman

Debra Hoffman

Kathryn Hoffman

Stephen Hoffman

Walter Hoffman

Christina Hofmann

Walter Hofmann

James Hogan

Tiffany Hogan

Rhonda Hollan

Troy Hollan

Barbara Holmes

Harold Holmes

Florence Howard

Jesse Howard

Carol Hubbard

Robert Hubbard

8. The claims of the following Plaintiffs against Lilly in the abovecaptioned action remain pending:

REMAINING PLAINTIFFS

Charles Grimes

Laura Grimes

IdaMae Hudgins

Joseph Hudgins

Donna Mitchell

Thomas Mitchell

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01907-LJO-SKO Document 49 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 3