Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Brown et al
| Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America |
| Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr. and Robert P David |
| 2:2017cv02573 |
| December 8, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Morrison C. England |
| Constitutionality of State Statutes |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| None |
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
100
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 6/16/2021 GRANTING 94 Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal. Pursuant to Federal Appellate Rule 5(a)(3), the Court hereby amends its 1/4/2021, Memorandum and Order to grant PhRM A permission to appeal and state that the Order satisfies the necessary conditions for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). This case is STAYED pending resolution of a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and any subsequent appellate proceedings. Not later than ninety (90) days following the date this Order is electronically filed, and every ninety (90) days thereafter until the stay is lifted, the parties are directed to file a Joint Status Report advising the Court as to the status of the proceedings before the Ninth Circuit. CASE STAYED. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
93
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/30/2020 DENYING 64 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Tupolo, A)
|
|
Filing
83
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/26/2020 CONTINUING the 64 Motion for Summary Judgement Hearing to 9/17/2020 at 11:00 AM conducted by Zoom videoconference before Senior Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Tupolo, A)
|
|
Filing
80
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/17/20 ORDERING that the Parties shall appear via videoconference at oral argument for Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment hearing scheduled for August 27, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/4/2020 ORDERING that Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's 70 opposition to the motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than 5/19/2020. Defendant may file a reply to Plaintiff's reply no later than 6/10/2020. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
69
STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING ECF NO. 68 signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/20/2020. Good cause having been shown, and in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the Court here by ORDERS that: 1. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64) shall be filed no later than April 27, 2020; 2. Plaintiff's reply shall be filed no later than fifteen days after Defendant's response is filed; and3. Defendant may file a reply no later than fifteen days after Plaintiff's reply is filed. (Deutsch, S)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/10/2020 ORDERING plaintiff's 59 Objections are SUSTAINED. Plaintiff shall file its motion for summary judgment within 30 days of the order. California shall file its response within 45 days after Plaintiff's motion is filed. Plaintiff may file a reply within 15 days after California's response is filed, and California may file a reply within 15 days of Plaintiff's reply. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
55
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/30/19 DENYING 43 Motion to Dismiss and GRANTING 43 Request for Judicial Notice. (Coll, A)
|
|
Filing
48
AMENDED ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 11/26/18 GRANTING 39 Request to Seal. The Court's previous Order 46 shall be re-filed under seal. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/11/2018 IT IS SO ORDERED Defendants' motion to dismiss and memorandum shall be filed no later than 10/24/2018, its memorandum shall be no longer than 30 pages; Plaintiff's opposition by 11/16/2018, memorandum no longer than 30 pages; Defendants' reply by 12/6/2018, and no longer than 20 pages; the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss shall be 12/13/2018, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (Reader, L)
|
|
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/28/18 GRANTING 19 Motion to Dismiss: The Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety, but PhRMA is granted leave to amend the Complaint not later than thirty (30) days following the date this Memorandum and Order is electronically filed. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/16/2018 GRANTING leave to file a response to 27 Sur-reply of no more than 3 pages. Defendant must file within 5 days. (Fabillaran, J)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/4/2018 GRANTING 25 Application for Leave to File Sur-Reply. (Washington, S)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/22/2018 ORDERING Defendants' initial memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion to dismiss complaint shall be filed no later than 1/26/2018, and be no longer in leng th than 30 pages; Plaintiff's opposition memorandum shall be filed no later than 2/26/2018, and be no longer in length than 30 pages; Defendants' reply memorandum shall be filed no later than 3/26/2018, and be no longer in length than 20 pages; and the hearing shall be 4/19/2018. (Reader, L)
|
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 California Eastern 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.
