New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services et al
Plaintiff: |
New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd. |
Defendant: |
Presbyterian Healthcare Services and Presbyterian Network, Inc. |
Case Number: |
1:2012cv00526 |
Filed: |
May 16, 2012 |
Court: |
US District Court for the District of New Mexico |
Office: |
Albuquerque Office |
County: |
Bernalillo |
Presiding Judge: |
W. Daniel Schneider |
Presiding Judge: |
Gregory B. Wormuth |
Nature of Suit: |
Antitrust |
Cause of Action: |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1337 |
Jury Demanded By: |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
April 13, 2020 |
Filing
883
ORDER ADOPTING 882 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by District Judge Martha Vazquez ; GRANTING 869 ORDER on Motion to Review Clerk's Order Settling Costs. See order for specifics. (gr)
|
March 26, 2020 |
Filing
882
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION by Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth re 869 Opposed MOTION to Review Clerk's Order Settling Costs filed by Presbyterian Network, Inc., Presbyterian Healthcare Services. Objections to PFRD due by 4/9/2020. (ts)
|
February 28, 2020 |
Filing
873
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Cross- Appeal 860 is GRANTED, as follows: Defendants are permitted to file a notice of cross-appeal no later than five (5) days after entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. (mjr)
|
November 14, 2019 |
Filing
848
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez GRANTING 624 MOTION for Summary Judgment . There is no evidence in the record that Defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct within the meaning of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Accordingly, as a matter of law, Plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of its monopolization and attempted monopolization claims. Defendants thus are entitled to summary judgment on those claims (Counts I, III, IV, and VI). The Cou rt declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's additional claims arising under state law (Counts VII, VIII, and X). The Court thus dismisses those claims without prejudice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 624] is GRANTED. (laz)
|
November 5, 2018 |
Filing
834
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez. In sum, in consideration of the foregoing, the Court awards Plaintiff fees in the amount of $499,335.99. (gr)
|
March 28, 2018 |
Filing
816
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth. The Court awards Plaintiff fees in the amount of $179,840 pursuant to 745 , 753 and 768 . (bni)
|
February 21, 2018 |
Filing
814
ORDER ADOPTING 745 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by District Judge Martha Vazquez; OVERRULING 756 Objections, filed by New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd.; DENYING 791 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd.. (gr)
|
September 25, 2017 |
Filing
787
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth granting in part and denying in part 575 Motion to Compel; adopting in part 609 Special Master's Second Report and Recommendations; granting 621 Defendant's Motion to Modify the Special Master's Second R&R; granting in part 622 Plaintiff's Motion to Adopt Special Master's Second R&R. (bni)
|
August 16, 2017 |
Filing
745
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION by Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth re 673 MOTION for Sanctions. (twr)
|
February 27, 2017 |
Filing
609
SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Special Master Alan C. Torgerson. (mjr)
|
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 New Mexico District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?