In re Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litigation
District Court, D. Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
GOETTEL, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are three motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the forty hospital-defendants1 in this Multidistrict Litigation, addressed to the following issues: (a) failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. [Doc. # 38]; (b) failure to state a cause of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. [Doc. #40]; and (c) whether the actions are barred by the relevant statutes of limitations [Doe. #42]. Additionally, individual defendants have filed supplemental motions to dismiss and/or briefs addressed to issues or facts…
2Cases cited110 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
105 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- United States v. Community Health Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- United States Ex Rel. Conner v. Salina Regional Health Center, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- United States Ex Rel. Hockett v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2007
- Interim Healthcare, Inc. v. Spherion Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 2005
- Rzayeva v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2007
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.