Colton Curtis Cardinal v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 0:25-cv-02509
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Colton Curtis Cardinal, File No. 25-cv-2509 (ECT/DTS)

Plaintiff,

v. OPINION AND ORDER

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.,

Defendant.

Pro se Plaintiff Colton Curtis Cardinal filed this lawsuit in Minnesota state court against Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., on May 21, 2025. ECF No. 1 ¶ 3; see ECF No. 1-1. On June 17, 2025, Bayer removed the case to this Court. ECF No. 1. The Court has independently reviewed Bayer’s jurisdictional allegations and finds Bayer has shown there is subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under at least 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 9–18. Bayer was granted an extension of time to on or before August 8, 2025, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. See ECF No. 10. On August 8, 2025, Bayer filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 16. Pursuant to this District’s Local Rules, Mr. Cardinal’s response to the Motion to Dismiss was due on or before August 29, 2025. See D. Minn. LR 7.1(c)(2). Mr. Cardinal filed no response before that deadline. On September 11, 2025, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz referred Mr. Cardinal to the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project. ECF No. 28. The Pro Se Project later notified the Court that an attorney volunteered to consult with Mr. Cardinal, but this consultation has since concluded. Now, almost three months after his original deadline, Mr. Cardinal still has filed no response to

Bayer’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. A plaintiff’s failure to respond to a motion constitutes a waiver. See, e.g., Hansen v. Westly, No. 24-cv-2653 (ECT/JFD), 2024 WL 4851300, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 21, 2024) (stating plaintiff’s “failure to respond to [defendants’] motion constitutes a waiver, and the motion would be granted on just this basis”); Daniel v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 22-cv3184

(ECT/DLM), 2023 WL 6392404, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 2, 2023) (noting that a failure to respond to a motion “constitutes a waiver”), aff’d, No. 23-3476, 2024 WL 3634227 (8th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024); Hernandez-Diaz v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 22-cv-2302 (JRT/JFD), 2023 WL 2025123, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 15, 2023) (“As a preliminary matter, the Court interprets a failure to respond to a motion to dismiss as a waiver and voluntary dismissal of those claims.”); Cox v. Harpsted, No. 22-cv-0478 (PJS/DJF), 2022 WL

16541087, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 28, 2022) (accepting R. & R. and agreeing that the plaintiff’s “failure to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss amounts to waiver”); see also Ernst v. Hinchliff, 129 F. Supp. 3d 695, 726 (D. Minn. 2015) (“Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff is still bound to comply with the Local Rules of this Court.”). For this reason, Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted, and Mr. Cardinal’s

claims will be dismissed. ORDER Therefore, based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in

this case, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED. 2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: November 25, 2025 s/ Eric C. Tostrud Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court