Legal Opinion

IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided August 15, 2022No. 1:15-cv-06549Unknown

1Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OG i pee DATE FILED: 8/15/2022 IN RE NAMENDA INDIRECT PURCHASER No. 1:15-cv-6549 (CM) (RWL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION DECISION AND ORDER ON THE MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR “CLARIFICATION” McMahon, J.: The court, for its rulings in limine: A. Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine: 1. First Motion in Limine The Plaintiff Class (“Plaintiffs”) moves in limine to preclude Defendants from presenting evidence and argument regarding reputation, social and political issues. (See Docket No. 746).…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2013
  2. United States v. FelizCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
  3. In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
  4. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Emp'rs Health & Welfare Fund v. Teikoku Pharma United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2017
  5. Apotex, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API