SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES
| SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION |
| ABBOTT LABORATORIES |
| 1:2015cv00360 |
| April 15, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| WILLIAM L. OSTEEN |
| JOE L. WEBSTER |
| Other Contract |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1 |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
752
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR. on 3/20/2017, for the reasons stated herein, ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Changed Choice-of-Law Principles (Doc. 710 ) and Alternative Motion to Dismiss GSK's Unfair and Deceptive Acts Claim under North Carolina Law (Doc. 721 ) are DENIED. (Butler, Carol)
|
|
Filing
717
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR. on 3/10/2016, that As a result of the foregoing, this court finds as follows: 1. Briefing should proceed to address the choice-of-law issue. Abbott has filed a motion, (D oc. [710)], contending that either Pennsylvania or New York law applies and that Abbott is entitled to judgment on the pleadings. GSK is hereby directed to respond to that motion within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order. Abbott shal l thereafter have fourteen (14) days to file a reply. 2. To the extent appropriate, Abbott may file a motion and brief seeking dismissal of the North Carolina UDTPA claim to the extent that Abbott contends that dismissal of the antitrust cla im supports dismissal of the related claim. The brief in support of the motion shall be limited to twelve (12) pages in length. GSK may file a response, no more than ten (10) pages in length, and Abbott may file a reply of no more than five (5) pages in length. The parties should bear in mind that the prior trial transcripts as well as the Ninth Circuit opinion are now a part of the record, such that extensive factual recitations are not necessary. 3. Abbott's requests to file a Daubert motion and to limit the instructions and consideration of the contract theory are both denied without prejudice. 4. Because of the complexity of this case, the procedural history, the choice- of-law issues, and the potential for wasted ju dicial resources if this case is ultimately set for trial before a different court, this court will retain jurisdiction of this matter through trial. In light of the briefing, this court is considering a peremptory trial setting in either Aug ust or October 2016. The parties are directed to confer and advise the court in a joint filing of the anticipated length of trial as well as availability of the parties and counsel for a trial date in either August or October 2016.Consequently, to the extent that it is consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant's Motion Requesting that its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be Fully Briefed and Heard Before Trial (Doc. 712 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART without prejudice. (Butler, Carol)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
