Legal Opinion

CROCKETT v. LUITPOLD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 11, 2020No. 2:19-cv-00276Unknown

1Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHERINE CROCKETT, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, v. LUITPOLD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NO. 19-276 et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant Vifor Pharma Management, Ltd. (“Vifor Management”) moves to dismiss the Complaint brought against it by Plaintiff Katherine Crockett on the grounds that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Vifor Management. I. FACTS The facts in this case have already been recounted at length. See Crockett v. Luitpold Pharms., Inc.,

2020 WL 433367

(E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2020). In brief, this is a…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Walden v. FioreSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  4. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 2017

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

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

Powered by the Exa API