The motions to dismiss in these cases are up on May 11, 2015 -- and absent a response from your lawyer(s), each is very likely to be granted.
. . . .Any response to the defendants' motions to dismiss ((18 in 1:14-cv-03974-JG-VVP, 26 in 1:14-cv-02277-JG-VVP, 27 in 1:14-cv-02248-JG-VVP, 18 in 1:14-cv-03956-JG-VVP, 26 in 1:14-cv-03622-JG-VVP, 18 in 1:14-cv-03975-JG-VVP, 37 in 1:13-cv-05172-JG-VVP, 233 in 1:12-md-02331-JG-VVP, 87 in 1:12-cv-02047-JG-VVP, 26 in 1:14-cv-02272-JG-VVP, 24 in 1:14-cv-03791-JG-VVP, 26 in 1:14-cv-03086-JG-VVP, 22 in 1:14-cv-03588-JG-VVP, 27 in 1:14-cv-02246-JG-VVP, 26 in 1:14-cv-02232-JG-VVP, 18 in 1:14-cv-03957-JG-VVP, 26 in 1:14-cv-02677-JG-VVP) is due by May 11, 2015. . . .
In the wider sexual side-effects MDL, discovery battles still predominate (as they did on New Years' Day 2015). The central issue is whether scads of source files -- or just summaries of them -- will be turned over. And it is still being hashed out, with the Magistrate Judge primarily. We will keep you informed. Have a great night, one and all.
2 comments:
Is there anywhere online that lists all of the case #'s and the names associated with them?
Sadly, not of which I am aware.
There is no analogous website, Anon., that tracks the Propecia® MDL, in the way the linked one above does (that is, no single plaintiffs' firm of which I am aware runs one). So -- mine is just a review of the electronic federal case file, in the Eastern District of New York -- Propecia MDL, on PACER.
Do stop back.
Namaste
Post a Comment