• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Docket No. 09-1069
In the
United States Court of Appeals
 
for the Eighth Circuit
 
IN RE: BAYCOL PRODUCTS LITIGATIONPEGGY ANN MAYS, GEORGE F. MCCOLLINS,individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
KEITH SMITH, SHIRLEY SPERLAZZA,
 Respondents-Appellants,
v.BAYER CORPORATION, a foreign corporation,authorized to do business in West Virginia as Bayer Corporation,and also known as Bayer AG and Bayer Pharmaceutical,
 Defendants-Appellees,
BAYER AG, a foreign corporation,GLAXOSMITHKLINE, INC., a foreign corporation,SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION,GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC,
 Defendants.
_______________________________________
Appeal from a decision of the United States District Court of Minnesota,Civil No. 02-199, MDL No. 1431Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge
BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
R
ICHARD
A.
 
M
ONAHAN
 M
ARVIN
W.
 
M
ASTERS
 C
HARLES
M.
 
L
OVE
,
 
IVTHE MASTERS LAW FIRM lc181 Summers StreetCharleston, WV 25301(304) 342-3106
 Attorneys for Appellants 
C
OUNSEL
P
RESS
·
 
(866) 703-9373
 
P
RINTED
O
N
R
ECYCLED
P
APER
 
Case: 09-1069 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2009 Entry ID: 3523728
 
I.
 
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
 Appellants Keith Smith and Shirley Sperlazza are class representatives in
Smith, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al.
, No. 01-C-191 (1-3) JPM, a civil suit filed in theCircuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia on September 20, 2001, seekingclass certification of a West Virginia-only class concerning claims regarding themanufacture, sale, advertisement, warnings, and use of Baycol. A class-certification hearing was scheduled in
Smith
for December 10, 2008. However, onOctober 31, 2008, Appellee Bayer Corporation filed an expedited motion for apermanent injunction, seeking to enjoin the class-certification hearing on the basisthat on August 25, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in
 McCollins v. Bayer Corp., et al.
, No. 02-0199, had deniedcertification of a proposed West Virginia class concerning economic loss claimsarising from the sale and use of Baycol. By Order entered on December 9, 2008,the District Court granted Bayer Corporation’s expedited motion for a permanentinjunction.Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), Appellants now appeal such Order. Dueto the complexity of the issues, the irreparable harm caused Appellants, and thefar-reaching effects of the injunction, Appellants submit that oral argument is justified and that 30 minutes per party should be sufficient time to complete suchoral argument.
Case: 09-1069 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2009 Entry ID: 3523728
 
 2
II.
 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Inasmuch as Appellants, Keith Smith and Shirley Sperlazza, are individualpersons rather than corporations, they have no relevant information to report. Inthis regard, Appellants expressly note that—other than the corporate defendants(and any corporations sufficiently related to the corporate defendants)—Appellantshave no knowledge of any corporation which has a direct financial interest in theirclaims.
Case: 09-1069 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/05/2009 Entry ID: 3523728
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...