Legal Opinion
Royal Mile Co. v. UPMC & Highmark, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided August 21, 2014No. Case No. 10-1609PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CONTI, Chief Judge.
I. Introduction
Pending before the court in this antitrust action is a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF No. 249) filed by plaintiffs Royal Mile Company, Inc. (“Royal Mile”), Pamela Lang (“Lang”) and Cole’s Wexford Hotel, Inc. (“Cole’s Wexford” and collectively with Lang and Royal Mile, “plaintiffs”). Defendants UPMC and Highmark, Inc. (“Highmark”) oppose plaintiffs’ motion for leave arguing that permitting amendment based upon the allegations set forth in the proposed third amended complaint, which was attached to plaintiffs’ motion for leave,…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cole's Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
- Klein v. Commerce Energy, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
- Cole's Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. UPMCDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2015