Legal Opinion

In re Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litigation

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided May 12, 2004No. 3:03MD1505 (GLG)PublishedCited by 44 opinions

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

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. 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

  1. United States v. Community Health Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  2. United States Ex Rel. Conner v. Salina Regional Health Center, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
  3. United States Ex Rel. Hockett v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2007
  4. Interim Healthcare, Inc. v. Spherion Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 2005
  5. Rzayeva v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2007

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API