Cases

MEMORANDUM ** I. Pro Se Plaintiff Sascha Henderson claims that an interuterine device (“IUD”) made by a subsidiary of Defendant Pfizer, Inc. became imbedded in the lining of her uterus, causing her pain and making her infertile. In March 2002, more than 16 years after it was implanted, she had surgery to remove the IUD, and nearly three years later, filed this products liabilit

ORDER The Appellee, Pfizer, Inc. filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Appellant, Apotex, Inc. The petition for rehearing was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll whether to rehear the

359 F.3d 1361 PFIZER INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 03-1227. No. 03-1258. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Decided February 27, 2004. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 15, 2004.

OPINION AND ORDER JOHN V. ACOSTA, United States Magistrate Judge. : Introduction Plaintiff Kimberly Arnold (“Arnold”) brings this employment lawsuit against defendant Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) arising from a prior employment relationship. Arnold alleges claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101

OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL H. WATSON, District Judge. Plaintiff in this diversity action asserts several product liability claims under Ohio law, arguing her ingestion of a prescription drug, metoclopramide, caused her to develop a neurological system disorder known as tardive dyskinesia. The Defendants that manufacture the brand-name version of metoclopramide (“Brand Defendants”), move for summary

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Pfizer Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Motion to Strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) (“Mot.”). ECF No. 14. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds these motions appropriate fo

384 F.Supp. 265 (1974) The STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. CHAS. PFIZER & CO., INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 2287. United States District Court, E. D. North Carolina, Raleigh Division. June 25, 1974. *266 *267 Jean A. Benoy, Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C., for plaintiff, Sta

PER CURIAM. Jean Hampshire appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Postal Service on her disparate treatment claim filed under the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. I. Hampshire was employed by the U.S. Postal Service from October 22, 1977, until her dismissal on September 23, 1995. She alleges that sh

FIELD, Circuit Judge: Alleging violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the State of North Carolina instituted this action for damages on behalf of itself, its governmental subdivisions and all citizen consumers who had purchased broad-spectrum antibiotics manufactured and sold by the defendants in North Carolina during the period 1952 to 1966. The defendants are Chas. P

LETTOW, Judge and Presiding Officer, dissenting. I dissent. The congressional reference in this case requested that the court determine whether individuals who sold their land to the government during World War II for use as a military training camp were entitled to either legal or equitable relief.1 Concededly, legal relief is not available because the claims involved are barred by t

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. These consolidated cases involving the “wonder drug” tetracycline are before this Court a second time. In our earlier opinion, reported at 363 F.2d 757, this Court vacated the decision and order of the Commission and remanded the entire proceeding for a de novo hearing without the participation of the Chairm

918 F.Supp. 1059 (1996) Mara HENDERSON, Consepsion Harryman, Toni Hipp, Karen Talbert, and Earlene Bryan v. AT & T CORPORATION and AT & T Communications, Inc. Civil Action No. G-95-248. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division. March 19, 1996. *1060 James Duane Bashline, McLeod Alexander Powel & Ap

Writ of certiorari dismissed on authority of counsel for the petitioner.

363 F.2d 757 AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, Petitioner,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.BRISTOL-MYERS COMPANY and Bristol Laboratories Inc., Petitioners,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.CHAS. PFIZER & CO., Inc., Petitioner,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.The UPJOHN COMPANY, Petitioner,v.FE

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEE YEAKEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the court are Defendant Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Clerk’s Doc. No. 28); Plaintiffs Amended Memorandum in Response to Defendant Wyeth’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Clerk’s Doc. No. 30); and Defendant Wyeth Pharmaceuti

113 F.3d 1247 97 CJ C.A.R. 737 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

YU, J. (dissenting) ¶ 45 I am concerned with our adoption of an archaic feature of product liability law in *1220order to compensate the plaintiff for claims already allowed under modem product liability standards. I agree with the majority that, in the right case, we should adopt the "apparent manufacturer" doctrine from the Restatemen

912 S.W.2d 276 (1995) Gaylon Joe PENICK, Appellant, v. Cecil CHRISTENSEN, M.D., Pfizer Hospital Group, Inc., and Pfizer Inc., Appellees. No. 14-94-00209-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). October 5, 1995. Rehearing Overruled January 4, 1996. *281 John H. Holloway, Houston, for appellant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL VESCOVO, United States Magistrate Judge. Before the court is the September 1, 1999 motion of the plaintiff, George S. Allen, to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum1 issued June 15, 1999, for production of financial, marketing, and licensing information from a nonparty, Medtronic Sofamor Danek (“Danek”). The motion was referr