White ex rel. Estate of McCullough v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
District Court, W.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
PAUL L. MALONEY, District Judge.
This Court has before it Defendant SmithKline Beechham Corporation’s Mo*1025tion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 71). Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion (Dkt. No. 97) and requested oral argument. As part of the response, Plaintiffs request leave to file an amended complaint in the event this Court decides to grant Defendant’s motion. Defendant filed a reply to the response (Dkt. No. 99). Having read the briefs, this Court…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Commercial Money Center, Inc. v. Illinois Union InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Allen W. Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Bruce Collyer v. Gregory DarlingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Knipe v. Smithkline BeechamDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- In Re Trasylol Products Liability Litigation-MDL-1928District Court, S.D. Florida · 2010
- Bower v. Johnson & JohnsonDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2011
- BORYCZ v. Johnson & JohnsonDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2011