ALLIED SERVICES DIVISION WELFARE FUND v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC et al
Plaintiff: ALLIED SERVICES DIVISION WELFARE FUND
Defendant: GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC and GLAXOSMITHKLINE, USA
Case Number: 2:2009cv00730
Filed: February 20, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office: Philadelphia Office
County: Outside the State of PA.
Presiding Judge: CYNTHIA M. RUFE
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 73 U.S.C. ยง 201 Violation of the Pennsylvania Consumer Fraud Act, and all other Acts in the United States
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 140 ORDER THAT GSK'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED. GSK'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED. DUGAN AND SADIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 6/26/2020. 6/26/2029 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO LIAISON COUNSEL. (kp, )
November 8, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 134 ORDER THAT JAMES DUGAN AND ART SADIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL IS DENIED. GSK'S MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ATTORNEY DUGAN MUST RESPOND TO GSK'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION BY 11/22/2019 AS OUTLINED HEREIN. ATTORNEY SADIN MUST RESPOND TO GSK'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION BY 11/22/2019 AS OUTLINED HEREIN.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 11/8/2019. 11/8/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO LIAISON COUNSEL. (SEE DOC 5288 IN 07-MD-1871)(kp, )
October 23, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF ALLIED SERVICES DIVISION WELFARE FUND IN C.A. 09-730 IS DENIED; PLAINTIFF SHALL PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER INDICATING WHETHER IT WISHES TO WITHDRAW ITS OPPOSED MOTIO N FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF UFCW LOCAL 1776 IN C.A. 10-2475 IS DENIED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF UNITED BENEFIT FUND IN C.A. 10-5419 IS DENIED IN SUBSTANTIAL PART; THE UTPCLP CLAIM ASSE RTED ON ITS OWN BEHALF IS DISMISSED; UNITED BENEFIT FUND'S NEW YORK STATE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THE MOTIONS TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 10/22/2013; 10/24/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO LIAISON COUNSEL. (SEE PAPER # 3619 IN 07-MD-1871). (tjd)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: ALLIED SERVICES DIVISION WELFARE FUND v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ALLIED SERVICES DIVISION WELFARE FUND
Represented By: ARNOLD LEVIN
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: GLAXOSMITHKLINE, USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?