Apotex Corp. v. Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited
Plaintiff: Apotex Corp.
Defendant: Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited
Case Number: 1:2018cv04903
Filed: June 1, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Jesse M. Furman
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28:1332
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
February 19, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 134 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the case is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to refiling the remaining claims in state court. Any pending motions are moot and should be terminated. All conferences are canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/19/2020) (jca)
January 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 126 ORDER: granting 125 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. The deadline to submit supplemental briefs is hereby EXTENDED to January 24, 2020. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 125. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/16/2020) (ama)
January 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 124 OPINION AND ORDER: In short, Apotex's own allegations make clear that it cannot state a plausible claim for monopolization or attempted monopolization. In the final analysis, Apotex is essentially trying to recast a claim for breach of contract a contract that restricts competition, no less as an antitrust claim, which it may not do. See, e.g., In re Adderall, 754 F.3d at 135 ("The mere existence of a contractual duty to supply goods does not by itself give rise to an antitrust &# 039;duty to deal.'"); RxUSA Wholesale Inc. v. Alcon Labs., 391 F. App'x 59, 61 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) ("A refusal to deal with competitors does not constitute anticompetitive conduct in violation of Section 2 except in limited circumstances not present here."). Accordingly, Apotex's antitrust claims must be and are dismissed. That leaves two interrelated issues: amendment and jurisdiction. Apotex requests, in the event that its antitrust claims are dis missed, "a conference to address next steps, including amendment." Pl.'s Opp. 25. Construing this as a cursory request for leave to amend, the Court. concludes that leave to amend would be futile. See, e.g., Rincon v. Covidien, No. 1 6-CV-10033 ( JMF), 2017 WL 2242969, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2017) ("Although courts' should freely give leave when justice so requires, a court need not grant leave to amend when further amendment would be futile." (quoting Fed. R. Ci v. P. 15(a)(2)); see also Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam) ("Where it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive...it is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend." ). The defects in Apotex's antitrust claims are "substantive" and arise from Apotex's own allegations, not from inadequate or inartful pleading. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Moreover, Apotex has not po inted to additional facts it could allege that would cure these defects, and it did not do so previously when Hospira challenged its proposed amended allegations. See ECF Nos. 60-61. Accordingly, leave to amend the antitrust claims is denied. With out the prospect of antitrust claims, however, it is not clear that this case should remain in federal court. Dismissal of the antitrust claims leaves only state-law claims and Apotex, a Delaware corporation, destroyed diversity by adding Hospira, Inc., another Delaware corporation, as a Defendant in the Second Amended Complaint. Compare SAC, with ECF No. 1, and ECF No. 34. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-l aw claims, and must balance the "traditional 'values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity'" to determine whether to do so. Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Carneg ie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The balance ordinarily does not support exercising jurisdiction "if all federal claims have been dismissed at the pleading stage." Haynes v. Zaporowski, 521 F. App'x 24, 28 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Second Circuit recently reiterated that, "in the usual case in which all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under t he pendent jurisdiction doctrine judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. ex rel. St. Vincent Catholic Med. Ctrs. R et. Plan v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 712F. 3d 705, 727 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Francis v. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 760 F. App' x 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order). Unfortunately, the parties have no t adequately briefed the question of subject-matter jurisdiction in the absence of the antitrust claims. In its memorandum of law in support of its motion, Hospira indicated, with little elaboration, that "the Court properly may elect to retain jurisdiction...or decline to do so." Defs. Mem. 24 Apotex did not address the issue at all in its opposition brief, and Hospira provided no further discussion in its reply brief. Accordingly, the Court will reserve judgment on whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims (and, by extension, reach Hospira's argument with respect to the punitive damages claim) or dismiss the case without prejudice to refiling the state-law claims in state court pending further briefing. No later than January 17, 2020, each side shall submit a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, addressing the issue. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF. No. 84. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/6/2020) (jca)
January 3, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 123 LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF MARCH 18, 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS. This Court respectfully requests that the Ministry of Law and Justice cause the appr opriate orders to be issued to allow Apotex to take the deposition of the individual as identified in Section 9 for use in the case and at trial in the proceedings as further set forth in this Order. This Court respectfully requests that the exami nations be conducted under oath. This Court respectfully requests that the testimony of the witness be taken orally by counsel for the parties and be recorded verbatim by a stenographer (court reporter) in writing. This Court respectfully requests that the parties be permitted to arrange, at their expense, for the attendance of a privately employed stenographer (court reporter); b. The Court further requests that the testimony be videotaped. The Court respectfully requests that the parties b e permitted to arrange, at their expense, for the attendance of a privately employed videographer; c. This Court respectfully requests that, unless the witness requests to testify in another language, the examinations be conducted in English. If th e witness requests to testify in another language, the Court requests that the parties be permitted to make arrangements, at their expenses, for the attendance of a privately-employed interpreter or, should that not be acceptable, an interpreter a ssigned by the Central Authority; d. This Court respectfully requests that counsel for the parties be permitted to attend the deposition, and that counsel for the parties be permitted to ask follow up questions and show the witness documents in thi s context; e. This Court respectfully requests that the witness be examined as soon as possible; f. This Court requests that to the extent that any of these requests cannot be granted that the execution of these requests be performed according to a pplicable law. This court respectfully requests that counsel for Apotex (James W. Matthews Foley & Lardner LLP, 111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02199-7610, Tel: +1 617 342 4000, Email: jmatthews@foley.com) be notified of the date , time, and place of the examination. The examination will take place at a time and location to be determined by the Ministry of Justice and/or Apotex and Hospira, but no later than February 14, 2020. This Court expresses its appreciation for the assistance and courtesy of the courts of India in this matter, and states that it shall be ready and willing to assist the courts of India in a similar manner when required. Respectfully Submitted. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/3/20) (yv)
August 13, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 83 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For these reasons, and in light of the Florida authority cited above, the Court would dismiss Apotex's FDUTPA claims for lost-profit damages even if it were considering the issue on a blank slate; Apotex certainl y does not satisfy the standards applicable to a motion for reconsideration. See, e.g., In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 2017 WL 3443623, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017). Accordingly, the Court clarifies (to the ex tent necessary) that Apotex's FDUTPA claims for lost-profit damages were and are dismissed, and Apotex's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 75. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/13/2019) (jca)
July 12, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 70 OPINION AND ORDER re: 55 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Apotex Corp., 37 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited. For the reasons stat ed above, Hospira's motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Apotex's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. Any amended complaint by Apotex is due within fourteen days of this Opinion and Order. Any motion to dismiss by Hospira is due within twenty-one days of the amended complaint being filed. If Hospira files such a motion, any opposition is due within twenty-one days of the motion being filed; any reply is due within fourteen days of the opposition. In the event that Hospira and Hospira, Inc., do move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, they may make any arguments they wish, including that the new allegations fail to state a claim, subject - of course - to the rulings that this Court has already made. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 37 and 55. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/12/2019) (ne)
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 York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Apotex Corp. v. Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Apotex Corp.
Represented By: Redi Kasollja
Represented By: Katy Koski
Represented By: Sara Pamhidzai Madavo
Represented By: James W. Matthews
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: Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited
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?