Legal Opinion
Picone v. Shire U.S. Inc. (Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Class Action)
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided November 6, 2019No. 1:16-cv-12396Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS * * * In re INTUNIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION * Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-12396-ADB (Indirect Purchasers) * * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BURROUGHS, D.J. Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”) seek reconsideration of the Court’s August 21, 2019, Order [ECF No. 230] that denied their motion for class certification. [ECF No. 235]. The IPPs now request that the Court certify a class of persons who bought brand Intuniv or generic Guanfacine ER with cash or co-insurance. For the reasons discussed herein, the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Pacific Insurance Company v. American National Fire Insurance Company, Rail Link, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
- Palmer v. Champion MortgageCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.