Legal Opinion

Cargill, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd.

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided October 6, 2000No. Misc. No. 99-197 (TFH); MDL No. 1285PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: Bronnimann Motions

THOMAS F. HOGAN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are defendant Roland Bronnimann’s (“Bronnimann”) Motion to Dismiss the Cargill complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and the Car-gill plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Roland *64Bronnimann’s testimony.1 Upon careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, the oral arguments presented at the September 13, 2000 hearing, and the entire record herein, this Court will deny the Motion to Compel and defer ruling on the Motion to Dismiss pending further jurisdictional discovery.

I. BACKGROUND

Roland Bronnimann…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Baxter v. PalmigianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Rogers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  3. Mitchell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  4. Gentile v. State Bar of Nev.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. GTE New Media Services Inc. v. BellSouth Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2000

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Vitamins Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API