Legal Opinion
Radu Cojocaru v. Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
District Court, S.D. California
Decided February 6, 2026No. 3:24-cv-01770Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RADU COJOCARU, Case No.: 24cv1770-W-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC. 39] 14 MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Radu Cojocaru’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a second 18 amended complaint (“SAC”). (Mtn. Amend [Doc. 39].) Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC 19 (“Defendant”) filed an opposition (Opp’n [Doc. 55]), and Plaintiff filed a reply (Reply 20 [Doc. 56]). The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Eminence Capital, Llc, and Jay Spechler v. Aspeon, Inc. Richard P. StackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Dcd Programs, Ltd. v. Michael W. Leighton, Hill, Farrer & BurrillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Christopher Owens Cynthia Hutchins,plaintiffs-Appellants v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,inc., a California Corporation,defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Marilyn Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., and Atlas Hotels, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.