Legal Opinion
D.R. Ward Construction Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 30, 2006No. MDL NO. 1684. No. 2:05-CV-4157-LDDPublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAVIS, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the second amended indirect purchaser complaint (Doc. No. 16), plaintiffs’ brief in opposition (Doc. No. 28), and defendants’ response thereto (Doc. No. 83). For the following reasons, this Court grants defendants’ motion in part and denies defendants’ motion in part.
I. Factual and Procedural History
This action was commenced by complaint on August 4, 2005. (Doc. No. 1). On March 1, 2006, plaintiffs D.R. Ward Construction, Anna C. Furney, and David Pearman (“plaintiffs”), indirect…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- In Re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Lit.District Court, D. Delaware · 2007
- In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
- In Re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2007
- Lorix v. Crompton Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.