WILLIAMS et al v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE et al
| DEBORAH WILLIAMS, LEO PALLANCK, JOHN BRIGHT, LINDA BURGESS, GORDON T. COLE, EDWARD DELL, ELIZABETH HUERTA, SHIRLEY LOEFFLER, TERRY BEASLEY, RHONDA ROBINSON, ROY WADE SCOTT, PAULA SPECK, CHRISTINA STEARLE, RAYMOND THOMAS, JOHNNIE TOMES, FRANK TREVINO, JULIUS TUCK, SONDRA VAUGHAN, LYNN WHITE, ROMAN WHITMORE and JULIE AUSTIN |
| GLAXOSMITHKLINE, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, DOES and MCKESSON CORPORATION |
| 2:2008cv02943 |
| June 24, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability Office |
| Philadelphia |
| CYNTHIA M. RUFE |
| None |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
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
13
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-5116 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNADINO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-1726 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS R EMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-1981 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; THE M OTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-1733 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-5227 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT O F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-1729 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-1727 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-1732 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR T HE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-1728 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-835 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-2884 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE MO TION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-4235 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-1730 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TH E STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-1731 IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-2943 I S GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS REMANDED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-5019 IS DENIED; THE MOTION TO REMAND IN C.A. 08-4981 IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 2/25/09; 2/26/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO LIAISON AND E-MAILED. (SEE PAPER # 352 IN 07-MD-1871). (tjd)
|
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 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.
