Cases

MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J. I. INTRODUCTION Cali Longtin ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Organon USA, Inc., N.V. Organon, Schering Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., and Merck Sharp & Dohme ("Defendants"), for claims related to a stroke she suffered in New Jersey following her use of NuvaRing, a prescription contraceptive.1 Presently before the court is Defendants' motion for summary

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge. Defendants in this case, hereinafter “Organon,” move for summary judgment directed to Plaintiff Marianne Prather’s punitive damages claim. To decide Organon’s motion, I must first determine which state’s law applies to this action. Applying the Second Restatement’s most significant relationship test as required by Missouri’s choice-of-la

244 F.Supp.2d 370 (2002) ORGANON INC. and Akzo Nobel N.V., Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant. Organon Inc. and Akzo Nobel N.V., Plaintiffs, v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 01-2682, 01-2171 and 01-3835. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. December 18, 2002. *3

862 F.Supp. 603 (1994) ARES-SERONO, INC., Serono Laboratories Inc., Applied Research Systems ARS Holding N.V., and Genzyme Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. ORGANON INTERNATIONAL B.V. and Organon, Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 92-11982-NMG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 14, 1994. *604 Dale A. Malone, John P. I

ORDER RE: ARES-SERONO’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MARTHA J. CARTER AS AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT UNDER PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOCKET ENTRY # 86) BOWLER, United States Magistrate Judge. On June 14, 1993, plaintiffs Ares-Serono, Inc., Serono Laboratories, Inc., Applied Research Systems ARS Holding N.V. and Gen-*5zyme Corporation (“plaintiffs”) filed

23 Wn. App. 432 (1979) 595 P.2d 1314 ORGANON, INC., Respondent, v. BRIAN P. HEPLER, Appellant. No. 2910-3. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three. May 29, 1979. Huppin, Ewing, Anderson & Hergert and Robert F. Ewing, for appellant. Dellwo, Rudolf & Schroeder and Richard J. Schroeder, for r

Wilson, Judge: The merchandise in the cases at bar, which have been consolidated for trial, invoiced as “Heparin Sodium USP XV,” was classified under paragraph 5 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 52739, at the rate of 12% per centum ad valorem, as a medicinal preparation, not specially provided for. Plaintiff claims the merchandise properly free of d

245 F.2d 495 ARMOUR and COMPANY, Appellant,v.ORGANON, Inc., Appellee. Patent Appeal No. 6266. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. June 25, 1957. Carl C. Batz and Frank T. Barber, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Alexander, Maltitz, Derenberg & Daniels, New York City (Wal

Garrett, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the judgment of the United States Customs Court, First Division, rendered in conformity with its decision, C. D. 1048, overruling the protest of the importer and sustaining the collector’s classification of a substance invoiced as “Urine Concentrate in form of K Ill-crystals,” entered at the port of New York. The sub

Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion [8] to remand this case to state court. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion [8] is respectfully denied. This case is set for further status on September 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. I. Background On June 15, 2018, Plaintiff D.C., by and through his mother Felicia Cheatham ("P

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 15-0802 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 30, 35, 36, 37, 38,

MEMORANDUM OPINION WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 16), to which Defendants have responded in opposition (Doc. No. 21), and Plaintiffs have replied (Doc. No. 33). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion will be granted and this case will be remanded to state court. I. Background

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Jeffrey Cole, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ' A VERY BRIEF INTRODUCTION These patent infringement cases, involving seemingly uncomplicated plastic couplers, have now spanned ten years, generated 17 written opinions, scores of substantive orders, two trials, and a contempt hearing.1 The docket e

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER E. RICHARD WEBBER, Senior District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand the ease to state court [ECF No. 15]. I. BACKGROUND On June 8, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this product liability action against Forest Laboratories Inc., and Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc., in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, M

OPINION AND ORDER HENRY COKE MORGAN, JR., Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. Doc. 5. On February 5, 2013, the Court convened a hearing and ruled from the bench. The Court GRANTED Plaintiffs Motion and now issues this Opinion and Order setting forth the reasons for its ruling in further detail. I. Relevant Factual Backg

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. BACKGROUND Relators Alex Booker and Edmund He-bron brought this qui tam action against Pfizer, Inc., on behalf of the federal government, 25 states, and the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) and state analogues, chiefly.related to the promotion, of the pres

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Casper, United States District Judge I. Introduction Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has filed this lawsuit against Defendants Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC and Texas Roadhouse Management Corp. (collectively, “Texas Roadhouse”) alleging a pattern or practice of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employmen

737 F.Supp.2d 1257 (2010) NATIONAL CITY BANK, N.A. and the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. PRIME LENDING, INC.; Ronald D. Thomas and John Does 1-20, Defendants. No. CV-10-34-EFS. United States District Court, E.D. Washington. July 20, 2010. Opinion Denying Motion to Amend December 13, 2010. *1261

422 F.Supp.2d 934 (2006) MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. BEL FUSE, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 03 C 2934. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. March 14, 2006. *935 Patrick Joseph Kelleher, Andrea Maria Augustine, Brian C. Rupp, Michael E. Barry, Peter J. Meyer, Richard Andrew Wulff, Gardn

35 F.Supp.2d 1 (1999) SERONO LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. Donna E. SHALALA, et al., Defendants and Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., Intervenor-Defendant. Civ.A. No. 97-1227 (SS/JMF). United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 21, 1999. Terry S. Coleman, Bruce S. Manheim, Matthew David Peterson, Fox, Bennett & Turner, Washington, DC, fo