Cardinal v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-02509
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Cardinal v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Judge Tostrud dismissed pro se plaintiff Colton Curtis Cardinal's lawsuit after he failed to respond to Bayer's motion to dismiss.
Pro se plaintiffs (self-represented litigants) in the District of Minnesota who receive motions to dismiss — this case illustrates that failure to respond to such a motion, even with access to a volunteer attorney consultation, will result in dismissal. It may also be relevant to pharmaceutical litigation plaintiffs generally.
What happened
In Colton Curtis Cardinal v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., pro se plaintiff Colton Curtis Cardinal sued Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. in Minnesota state court on May 21, 2025, and Bayer removed the case to federal court on June 17, 2025. Bayer then filed a motion to dismiss the case, and Cardinal's deadline to respond was August 29, 2025. Despite being referred to a volunteer attorney consultation program, Cardinal never filed a response — even nearly three months after the original deadline.
The court's analysis was brief: under well-established practice in the District of Minnesota, a plaintiff's failure to respond to a motion is treated as a waiver. The court cited multiple prior decisions from the same district holding that not responding to a motion to dismiss amounts to giving up those claims. The court also noted that Cardinal's status as a self-represented (pro se) litigant does not exempt him from following the court's local rules.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted Bayer's motion to dismiss and dismissed the entire action without prejudice, meaning Cardinal is not barred from refiling. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Cardinal v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. · No. 0:25-cv-02509
- Eric Tostrud
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
Pro se plaintiff Colton Curtis Cardinal (a party representing himself without an attorney) filed this lawsuit against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. in Minnesota state court on May 21, 2025. On June 17, 2025, Bayer removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The court independently reviewed the jurisdictional basis and found that subject-matter jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the diversity-of-citizenship statute, which allows federal courts to hear disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The opinion does not describe the substance of Cardinal's underlying claims against Bayer.
Procedural History
Bayer was granted an extension of time to respond to the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) — a motion arguing that the complaint fails to state a legally valid claim — on August 8, 2025. Under the District of Minnesota's Local Rules, Cardinal's deadline to file a response was August 29, 2025.
Cardinal did not respond by that deadline. On September 11, 2025, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz referred Cardinal to the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association's Pro Se Project, a program that connects self-represented litigants with volunteer attorneys. An attorney volunteered to consult with Cardinal, and that consultation eventually concluded. Even so, nearly three months after the original response deadline, Cardinal had still filed nothing in opposition to Bayer's motion.
Legal Standard Applied
The court applied the well-established rule in the District of Minnesota that a plaintiff's failure to respond to a motion constitutes a waiver of opposition to that motion. The court cited multiple prior decisions from the same district for this principle, including:
- Hansen v. Westly, 2024 WL 4851300 (D. Minn. 2024) - Daniel v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., 2023 WL 6392404 (D. Minn. 2023), affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals - Hernandez-Diaz v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2023 WL 2025123 (D. Minn. 2023) - Cox v. Harpsted, 2022 WL 16541087 (D. Minn. 2022) - Ernst v. Hinchliff, 129 F. Supp. 3d 695 (D. Minn. 2015)
The court specifically noted that pro se status does not excuse a litigant from complying with the court's Local Rules.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud granted Bayer's motion to dismiss and dismissed the action without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means Cardinal is not permanently barred from bringing his claims again; he retains the ability to refile. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Note on Merits
The court did not reach the merits of Bayer's Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. The dismissal rested entirely on Cardinal's failure to respond, not on any evaluation of whether his claims were legally sufficient.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.