Cases

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Miller reported what she reasonably understood to be an offer of money in exchange for Curl-Step-ney’s implementing a protocol involving Abbott’s products. Had Curl-Stepney accepted the offer and implemented a protocol that promoted an Abbott nutritional product to Medicaid or Medicare patients resulting in claims for reimbursement, an FCA viola

DYK, Circuit Judge. Cordis Corporation appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting Abbott Laboratories’ motion to quash two subpoenas duces tecum issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 24. We conclude that section 24 only empowers a district court to issue a subpoena for use in a “contested case,” and

692 F.Supp.2d 453 (2010) WYETH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-230 (JAP). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. February 8, 2010. *454 Donald A. Robinson, Keith J. Miller, Robinson, Wettre & Miller LLC, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiffs. Thomas R. Curtin, George C. J

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The question raised in these related remand motions is whether a new Supreme Court decision can be an “order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained” that a case is removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Plaintiffs Illinois, Kentucky and New York brought these seven actions in various state courts alleging t

¶43 (concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I agree with the majority’s holding that the compelling interest standard applies to certain records filed with the *554court in this case and that the Court of Appeals had no authority for its decision to alter Abbott Laboratories’ statutory postjudgement interest obligation, imposed under RCW 4.56.110(3). However, I

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Birmingham Associates Ltd. (“Birmingham”) appeals a judgment compelling arbitration and dismissing the case. We review de novo a district court’s decision to compel arbitration. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, U.S., L.L.C. v. Nackel, 346 F.3d 360, 364 (2d Cir.2003). In doing so, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only

469 F.Supp.2d 842 (2006) State of HAWAII, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. CV 06-00437 DAE/BMK. United States District Court, D. Hawaii. November 30, 2006. *843 *844 Robert S. Libman, Esq., Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., Chicago, IL, Warren Price, III, Esq

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Birmingham Associates Ltd. (“Birmingham”) appeals a judgment compelling arbitration and dismissing the case. We review de novo a district court’s decision to compel arbitration. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, U.S., L.L.C. v. Nackel, 346 F.3d 360, 364 (2d Cir.2003). In doing so, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *195AND ORDER1 SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION New York City and forty-two New York counties have brought suit against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and subsidiaries alleging Medicaid fraud in violation of the federal Best Prices Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. (“LWD”), Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. (“RDC”) and Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc. (together, “Meijer”) (collec*220tively, the “direct purchaser plaintiffs” or the (“proposed DP

140 F.Supp.2d 894 (2001) Tom ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation, and Miles D. White, Defendants. Lena Gallagher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Abbott Laboratories, an Illinois corporation, and Miles D. White, Defendants. Nos. 99 C 6869, 00 C 765. United States Di

469 F.Supp.2d 835 (2006) STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.; Alpharma USPD, Inc.; Apothecon, Inc.; Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Astrazeneca LP; Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Aventis. Behring LLC n/k/a/ ZLB Behring LLC; Barr Laboratories, Inc.; Baxter Healthcare Corporation; Bayer Corporation; Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Roxane, Inc. f/k/a Roxane Laborator

60 F.Supp.2d 642 (1999) Michelle PLUMB, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Kevin Ruse, Defendants. No. 97-CV-60306-AA. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. January 22, 1999. *643 Julia Sherwin, Detroit, MI, for plaintiff. Camille S. Miller, Lewis & Munday, Detroit, MI, for defendants.

432 F.Supp.2d 408 (2006) ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation, Fournier Industrie et Sante, a French corporation, and Laboratoires Fournier S.A., a French corporation, Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, an Israeli corporation, and Novopharm, Ltd., a Canadian corporation, Counterclaim— Plaintiff

552 F.3d 1033 (2009) KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.; Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.; Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 06-55687, 06-55748. United States Court of Appeals, N

982 F.Supp. 1211 (1997) Robin FREE and Renee Free v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Mead Johnson & Company. No. CIV. A. 93-971-A. United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana. November 6, 1997. *1212 Patrick Wayne Pendley, A Professional Law Corp., Plaquemine, LA, Michael D. Hausfeld, Daniel A. Small, Cohe

RULING ON MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS AND ATTORNEY FEES JOHN V. PARKER, Chief Judge. This matter is before the court on a motion by plaintiffs for final approval of settlements entered into with defendants, Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Mead Johnson & Company (together “Bristol”). Also pending before the court is a joint application of plaintiffs’ cou

17 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998) ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Plaintiff, v. SELFCARE, INC. and Princeton Biomeditech Corporation, Defendants. Civil Action No. 98-10674-GAO. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 5, 1998. *44 Lee C. Bromberg, Bromberg & Sunstein, Boston, MA, Peter B. Ellis, Foley, Hoag & Eliot, Boston, MA, M

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: The appellants, consumers of infant formula, sued the above-named manufacturers of infant formula under Louisiana’s antitrust laws alleging a price-fixing conspiracy. Because this case is before us for a third time, it is unnecessary to recapitulate the procedural and factual history. See Free v. Abbott Lab., Inc., 164 F.3d 270

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: This class action brought under the antitrust laws of the State of Louisiana requires that we decide whether the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 overrules Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 94 S.Ct. 505, 38 L.Ed.2d 511 (1973). We hold today that it does. We agree with the district court that the claims of th