AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

In re K-DUR ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS.

ORDER

JOSEPH GREENAWAY, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on on the motions of Defendants Schering-Plough Corp. and its subsidiary Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wyeth (f/k/a American Home Products, Inc.) and its business unit ESI Lederle, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c), and to dismiss claims, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b), and the Direct Purchasers' motion to amend their complaint, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a); and the Court having heard oral argument and having considered the moving papers and good cause appearing;

IT IS on this 29th day of September 2004,

ORDERED that the Direct Purchasers' motion to amend their complaint is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' federal antitrust claims are DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers' and the Commonwealth's state antitrust claims are DENIED, without prejudice, as premature;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers' consumer protection claims are DENIED, without prejudice, as premature;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers' and the Commonwealth's common law unjust enrichment claims are DENIED, without prejudice, as premature;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss the Commonwealth's fraud, UTPCPL, and breach of contract claims are GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief is DENIED, without prejudice, as premature; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be served on all parties within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE K-DUR ANTITRUST LITIGATION
(Sep 29, 2004)