Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04980/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04980-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

------------------------------------------------------------ 

IN RE YASMIN AND YAZ (DROSPIRENONE) 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

------------------------------------------------------------ 

This Document Relates To: 

Susan Galinis, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et 

al. No. 3:09-cv-20079-DRH-PMF 

3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF 

MDL No. 2100 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND 

HERNDON, District Judge: 

 This Court is the transferee court presiding over the Multidistrict Litigation 

(“MDL”) known as In re: Yasmin and YAZ (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales 

Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2100. Presently, in the abovecaptioned matter, all common and case specific discovery will be complete once 

rulings are made on the following: 

1. Bayer’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony that Bayer Withheld 

Information about Adverse Events Re Yasmin (d/e 57); 

2. Bayer’s Motion to Exclude Irrelevant Expert Testimony on VTE Studies and 

Unreliable Testimony that Yasmin has a Higher Stroke Risk than Other 

Oral Contraceptives (d/e 58); 

3. Bayer’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Establish Causation 

of Any Failure to Warn (d/e 59). 

After these motions are ruled on, the Galinis case will be ready for trial. 

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 75 Filed 10/01/18 Page 1 of 2
2 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and the Rules for Multidistrict Litigation 

promulgated thereunder, specifically Rule 10.1(b), the Court suggests that this 

action be remanded to the transferor district court to complete this case-specific 

discovery. Here, the Galinis plaintiffs have used their own experts to support 

their case rather than the ones developed during the common discovery period. 

Due to this action, the undersigned does not have specialized knowledge of 

plaintiffs’ experts. Further, while plaintiffs’ theories of liability in this case are the 

same as other Yaz cases in some respects over which this judge has acquired 

extensive knowledge, they are different in many others. Finally, the motions 

pending will be governed by California law and so those motions can be aptly 

handled by a judge in the transferor district. 

Accordingly, the Court suggests that the above-captioned matter should be 

REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California for resolution of all outstanding matters. The Court requests an order 

from the JPML authorizing this Court to remand the case to the same. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Suggestion of Remand upon 

the Clerk of the MDL Panel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 United States District Judge 

Judge Herndon 

2018.10.01 

14:39:29 -05'00'

Case 3:09-cv-04980-SI Document 75 Filed 10/01/18 Page 2 of 2