In re HIV Antitrust Litigation

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE HIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC 8 ORDER RE IHPPS’ CLAIMS UNDER 9 STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS 10 Docket Nos. 1659, 1724, 1725 11 12 13 14 The Court previously held in its order on the in limine motions that California law would 15 not apply across the board to the IHPPs’ claims. See Docket No. 1716 (Order at 6-7). 16 Anticipating that ruling, Defendants argued that, if the laws of multiple states apply, then some of 17 the IHPPs’ consumer protection claims should be dismissed. According to…