United States Government Publishing Office
publisher
pbl
distributor
dst
United States
United States District Court District of Massachusetts
author
aut
Government Organization
text
government publication
eng
USCOURTS
Judicial Publications
judicial
2016-07-21
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
2016-07-20
monographic
deposited
born digital
JU 4.15
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405
P0b002ee19054edda
DGPO
2016-07-21
2016-07-21
USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405
machine generated
eng
fdlp
USCOURTS
USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405
District
mad
1st
Massachusetts
2240
1:15-cv-13405
Boston
civil
190
Other Contract Actions
28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund v. Allergan, PLC et al
1:15-cv-13405
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405
JU 4.15
1:15-cv-13405;15-13405
United States District Court District of Massachusetts
1st Circuit
Boston
U.S. Courts
author
aut
Actavis, PLC
Actavis, PLC
Defendant
Allergan Inc.
Allergan Inc.
Defendant
Allergan Sales, LLC.
Allergan Sales, LLC.
Defendant
Allergan USA Inc.
Allergan USA Inc.
Defendant
Allergan, PLC
Allergan, PLC
Defendant
Cadila Healthcare Limited
Cadila Healthcare Limited
Defendant
Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund
Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund
Plaintiff
Warner Chilcott Limited
Warner Chilcott Limited
Defendant
Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
Defendant
USCOURTS
USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405
District
mad
1st
Massachusetts
2240
1:15-cv-13405
Boston
civil
190
Other Contract Actions
28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Massachusetts
Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund v. Allergan, PLC et al
Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Zydus's motion to dismiss Count II, D. 46, is ALLOWED, and Warner Chilcott's motion is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in that:All Count II claims are dismissed;Monopolization claims (Count I) under Arizona, Nevada and Utah law are dismissed without prejudice in case Plaintiffs can comply or specifically plead how they complied with each state's notice requirements;Claims under Missouri, Massachusetts and Vermont law asserted by the Health Fund Plaintiffs are dismissed;Claims under Hawaii law asserted by the Health Fund Plaintiffs are dismissed, but the Hawaii monopolization claim (Count I) brought by Mark Adorney is dismissed without prejudice in case he can comply or specifically plead how he complied with the notice requirements; andThe motions to dismiss are DENIED in all other respects.As explained in footnote 2, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to strike, D. 56; andPlaintiffs' motions to seal their opposition to Zydus's motion to dismiss, D. 55, and for leave to file a reply memorandum in support of their motion to strike, D. 74, are ALLOWED nunc pro tunc.Associated Cases: 1:15-cv-12730-DJC et al.(Hourihan, Lisa)
0
2016-07-20
D09002ee1905553d2
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405/USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405-0
mad-1_15-cv-13405_0.pdf
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405/USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405-0
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405-0.pdf
USCOURTS 1:15-cv-13405; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund v. Allergan, PLC et al;
United States District Court District of Massachusetts
Massachusetts
USCOURTS-mad-1_15-cv-13405-0
0
2016-07-20
Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Zydus's motion to dismiss Count II, D. 46, is ALLOWED, and Warner Chilcott's motion is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in that:All Count II claims are dismissed;Monopolization claims (Count I) under Arizona, Nevada and Utah law are dismissed without prejudice in case Plaintiffs can comply or specifically plead how they complied with each state's notice requirements;Claims under Missouri, Massachusetts and Vermont law asserted by the Health Fund Plaintiffs are dismissed;Claims under Hawaii law asserted by the Health Fund Plaintiffs are dismissed, but the Hawaii monopolization claim (Count I) brought by Mark Adorney is dismissed without prejudice in case he can comply or specifically plead how he complied with the notice requirements; andThe motions to dismiss are DENIED in all other respects.As explained in footnote 2, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to strike, D. 56; andPlaintiffs' motions to seal their opposition to Zydus's motion to dismiss, D. 55, and for leave to file a reply memorandum in support of their motion to strike, D. 74, are ALLOWED nunc pro tunc.Associated Cases: 1:15-cv-12730-DJC et al.(Hourihan, Lisa)