Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Astellas US, LLC et al

Filing 112

ORDER: Lakeland Regional's Motion to Extend Time for Filing Class Certification Brief 95 is GRANTED. Astellas's Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations from the First Amended Complaint, or Alternatively, for a Case Management Conference to Set a Schedule for Class Certification Briefing 90 is DENIED AS MOOT. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/26/2012. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:10-cv-2008-T-33TGW

ASTELLAS US LLC,
PHARMA US, INC.,

and

ASTELLAS

Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Astellas’s
Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations from the First
Amended Complaint, or Alternatively, for a Case Management
Conference to Set a Schedule for Class Certification Briefing
(Doc. # 90), which was filed on May 4, 2012.

Lakeland

Regional Medical Center filed a Response to the Motion to
Strike (Doc. # 94) on May 21, 2012.

Also before the Court is

Lakeland Regional’s Motion to Extend Time for Filing Class
Certification Brief (Doc. # 95), filed on May 22, 2012.
Astellas filed a Response to the Extension Motion on June 6,
2012, (Doc. # 98), and Lakeland Regional Filed a Reply
Memorandum (Doc. # 109) on June 21, 2012, with leave of Court.
For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Extension
Motion and denies the Motion to Strike as moot.

I.

Factual and Procedural Background
Lakeland Regional, a “full-service hospital,” is a not-

for-profit

Florida

corporation

with

its

Lakeland, Florida. (Doc. # 11 at ¶ 7).
US,

LLC

and

Astellas

Pharma

US,

headquarters

in

Defendants Astellas
Inc.

(collectively,

“Astellas”) are Delaware corporations with headquarters in
Deerfield, Illinois. Id. at ¶ 8.
licensee
adenosine
Lakeland
unlawful,

of
to

two

patents

patients

Regional

involving

undergoing

alleges

anticompetitive,

Astellas is the exclusive

that

the

administration

cardiac
Astellas

monopolistic,

stress
has
and

of

tests.

engaged

in

exclusionary

activity with respect to adenosine in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, the Clayton Antitrust
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14, Florida antitrust law, and Florida common
law.
Lakeland Regional initiated this action against Astellas
on September 13, 2010, and filed an amended, putative class
action complaint on October 19, 2010. (Doc. ## 1, 11).
Lakeland Regional’s amended complaint arrays the following
counts against Astellas: unlawful tying (count one), exclusive
dealing (count two), attempted monopolize (count three),
unreasonable

restraint

of

trade

(count

four),

attempted

monopolization (count five), and tortious interference with a
-2-

prospective economic advantage (count six).

Astellas filed a

Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. # 16), which
this Court denied. (Doc. # 66).

The parties filed the Case

Management Report (Doc. # 27) on December 17, 2010, and as
this is a Track Three Case, the Court set a preliminary
pretrial conference before the assigned Magistrate Judge.
(Doc. # 31).

Astellas filed a Motion for Phased Discovery

(class discovery to be conducted before merits discovery)(Doc.
# 28), which this Court denied, finding, “phased discovery
will unnecessarily prolong this litigation and increase the
expense involved for both sides [and] will lead to duplicative
and delayed discovery.” (Doc. # 40 at 5).
On February 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 47) concerning the case
management deadlines. On March 14, 2011, the Court issued its
Case Management and Scheduling Order. (Doc. # 58).

Neither

the Report and Recommendation nor the Court’s Case Management
and Scheduling Order addressed the deadline for Plaintiff to
file a motion for class certification.

At this juncture,

Astellas seeks an order striking from the amended complaint
all class allegations, as Lakeland Regional failed to timely
move for class certification under the Court’s Local Rules.
Lakeland Regional seeks an extension of time in which to move
for class certification.
-3-

II.

Analysis
Local Rule 4.04(b), M.D. Fla., provides that motions for

class

certification

shall

be

filed

within

ninety

days

following the filing of the initial complaint, unless the time
is extended by the Court for cause shown.

Here, Lakeland

Regional filed its initial complaint on September 13, 2010.
Accordingly, under the Local Rules, Lakeland Regional’s motion
for class certification should have been filed by December 13,
2010.
However,
contemplated

it
that

should

be

Lakeland

noted

that

Regional’s

both

motion

certification would be filed at a later time.

parties

for

class

For instance,

the parties initially agreed in the Case Management Report
that

Lakeland

Regional

would

file

its

motion

for

class

certification by September 11, 2011. (Doc. # 27 at 11).
Astellas also represents that it previously agreed to Lakeland
Regional filing its motion for class certification by January
25,

2012,

or

May

10,

2012,

and

that

Lakeland

Regional

“reneged” on those two proposed deadlines. (Doc. # 90 at 2).
Lakeland Regional requests the opportunity to file its
motion for class certification by August 6, 2012.

The Court

determines that it is appropriate to grant a limited extension
of time for Lakeland Regional to file the motion for class

-4-

certification, but declines to allow Lakeland Regional until
August 6, 2012.1
Lakeland Regional has demonstrated excusable neglect for
missing the deadline set forth in the Local Rules.

Although

it would have been a far better choice for Lakeland Regional
to seek an extension of time prior to the expiration of the
deadline, the Court agrees with Lakeland Regional that, due to
the complex nature of this case, a worthwhile motion for class
certification could not have been filed within that initial
ninety day period after Lakeland Regional filed its complaint.
The

Court

also

agrees

with

Lakeland

Regional

that

the

requirements of Rule 23 cannot be satisfied with skeletal,
perfunctory motions for class certification.

As explained by

Justice Scalia in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct.
2541, 2551-52 (2011):
Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading
standard. A party seeking class certification must
affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the
Rule–-that is, he must be prepared to prove that
there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties,
common questions of law and fact, etc....
[C]ertification is proper only if the trial court
is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied....
Frequently, that rigorous analysis will entail some
overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s
underlying claim.
1

The Court also declines to postpone the Case Management
and Scheduling Order deadlines as proposed by Lakeland
Regional.
-5-

Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Balancing

the

equities

and

in

consideration

of

the

foregoing, the Court determines that it is appropriate to
allow

Lakeland

Regional

to

file

certification by July 13, 2012.

its

motion

for

class

Astellas has until July 26,

2012, to respond to the motion for class certification.
Lakeland Regional may file a reply, limited to ten pages, by
August 3, 2012.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Lakeland Regional’s Motion to Extend Time for Filing
Class

Certification

Brief

(Doc.

#

95)

is

GRANTED

consistent with the foregoing.
(2)

Astellas’s Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations from
the First Amended Complaint, or Alternatively, for a Case
Management

Conference

to

Set

a

Schedule

for

Class

Certification Briefing (Doc. # 90) is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 26th
day of June, 2012.

Copies:

All Counsel of Record
-6-