Cardinal v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

This case arose when pro se plaintiff (a person representing himself without an attorney) Colton Curtis Cardinal filed suit against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. in Minnesota state court on May 21, 2025. On June 17, 2025, Bayer removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, invoking the court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) — a provision allowing federal courts to hear disputes between citizens of different states when the amount at stake exceeds a threshold. Judge Tostrud independently reviewed the jurisdictional allegations and confirmed that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was proper.

Bayer received an extension to respond to the complaint, with a deadline of August 8, 2025. On that date, Bayer filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows a defendant to argue that a complaint should be dismissed because, even accepting all its facts as true, it fails to state a legally valid claim. Under the District of Minnesota's Local Rule 7.1(c)(2), Cardinal's response to that motion was due by August 29, 2025.

Cardinal filed no response 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. The court was later notified that a volunteer attorney did consult with Cardinal, but that consultation had concluded. As of the date of this opinion — November 25, 2025, nearly three months after the original deadline — Cardinal had still filed no response.

Judge Tostrud applied the well-established principle in the District of Minnesota that a party's failure to respond to a motion constitutes a waiver of opposition to it, citing multiple prior decisions from the same court. The opinion emphasized that this rule applies even to pro se litigants, who are still required to comply with the court's Local Rules. On this basis alone, Judge Tostrud granted Bayer's Motion to Dismiss. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Cardinal is not permanently barred from refiling, though the opinion makes no statement about the viability of any future claims.