Legal Opinion
Midland v. F. Hoffman-Laroche, Ltd.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided July 7, 2003No. 99-197 (TFH); MDL 1285; Nos. 00-1236, 00-547, 1:99-544PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
THOMAS F. HOGAN, Chief Judge.
Re: Cope Investments Motions to Dismiss
Pending before the Court are the motions of defendant Cope Investments Limited (“Cope”) to dismiss it as defendant from the Archer Daniels Midland v. F. Hoffman-Laroche and Hill’s Pet Nutrition v. F. Hoffman-Laroche actions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), for lack of personal jurisdiction.1 Also pending *18before the court are the motions of defendants Cope, Chinook Group Limited, Chinook Group, Inc., Peter Copland and Patrick Stayner (“Chinook Defendants”) from the Animal Science Products v. Chinook Group,…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Doe I v. State of IsraelDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Savage v. Bioport, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- In Re Vitamins Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003