Legal Opinion
US Ex Rel. Underwood v. Genentech, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 2, 2010No. Civil Action 03-3983PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
DIAMOND, District Judge.
The United States having declined to intervene in this qui tam action, the Relator — who is continuing the lawsuit — seeks to amend his Complaint to add new allegations purportedly based on documents the Department of Justice obtained during its six year investigation of this matter. (Doc. No. 63.) Defendant has moved to dismiss, arguing that the Complaint does not meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement. (Doc. No. 73.) Defendant also asks me to bar any amendment as an impermissible attempt to bolster Relator’s defectively pled Complaint. (Doc. No.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Grubbs v. KannegantiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
- United States Ex Rel. Clausen v. Laboratory Corp. of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- United States Ex Rel. Keshav S. Joshi v. St. Luke's Hospital, Inc. Mohammed Bashiti, United States of America, Movant BelowCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2006
- United States Ex Rel. Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield HospitalCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2004
- Jose Rolo v. City Investing Company Liquidating TrustCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- United States ex rel. Streck v. Allergan, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
- United States ex rel. Siegel v. Roche Diagnostics, Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2013
- United States ex rel. Bergman v. Abbot LaboratoriesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- United States v. Merck & Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- United States ex rel. Budike v. Peco EnergyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.