Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01906/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01906-5/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

JERALD BOWEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MCKESSON CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01906-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 

Case 1:12-cv-01906-LJO-SKO Document 50 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

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

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

Joan Bossert

Donna Bostick

William Bowman

Geraldine Bracken

Mabel Braddy

Abbei Brawley

Angelia Bridges

Margie Brinkley

Gordon Britt

Trina Broadnax

Curtis Brown

James Brown

John Brown

Patricia Brown

Pearline Brown

Robert Brown

Antoinette Brush

Linda Bryan

Carletha Buggs

Jozetta Bullock

Marilyn Bullock

Ginger Burchett

Mary Burke

Leroy Burns

Case 1:12-cv-01906-LJO-SKO Document 50 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

Christopher Calkins

Phyllis Campbell

Cathy Carroll

Neldra Carroll

Robert Carver

Ervin Cassell

Retha Castellon

Mabel Chambers

Joseph Cheney

Charles Childs

Gladys Chism

Don Coffee

Laretia Colbert

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

REMAINING PLAINTIFFS

Jerald Bowen

Regina Boykin

Marjorie Brasher

Sybol Bray

Wanda Brewer

Carolyn Byrd

Joseph Caldwell

Lynne Claughton

John Clibrey

Carolyn Coley

George Connor

Charlie Cook

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01906-LJO-SKO Document 50 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 3