Legal Opinion
In re Generic Pharm. Pricing Antitrust Litig.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 15, 2019No. MDL 2724; 16-MD-2724; 16-CB-27240; 16-CB-27242; 16-CB-27243; 16-DG-27240; 16-DG-27242; 16-DG-27243; 16-DV-27240; 16-DV-27242; 16-DV-27243; 16-DX-27240; 16-DX-27242; 16-DX-27243; 16-EC-27240; 16-EC-27242; 16-EC-27243; 16-PV-27240; 16-PV-27242; 16-PV-27243PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRufe, District Judge
Defendants in this multidistrict antitrust litigation have moved to dismiss the state law claims by the End-Payer Plaintiffs ("EPPs") and the Indirect-Reseller Plaintiffs ("IRPs") with respect to the following generic drugs: (1) clobetasol ; (2) digoxin ;
*820(3) divalproex ER; (4) doxycycline ; (5) econazole ; and (6) pravastatin (collectively, the "Group 1" drugs).1 For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
The background relevant to this decision is set forth at length in the Court's October 16, 2018 Opinion2 addressing Defendants'…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Alan Schmidt v. John SkolasCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Gress v. Freedom Mortg. Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
- Marion Diagnostic Ctr., LLC v. Mckesson Corp. (In re Generic Pharm. Pricing Antitrust Litig.)District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
- CALLERY v. HOP ENERGY, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2023
- CHAIRES v. NOVO NORDISK INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2020
- Connecticut v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2025
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.