Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v Mayo Collaborative Services, et al.

Filing 90

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered finding as moot 79 Motion to Dismiss; granting 84 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in a ccordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document.; granting 88 Motion for Hearing. SEE attached Order. (MacDonald, Gail) Modified date filed on 7/8/2016 date filed (DaSilva, Carolina).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
And ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MAYO COLLABORATIVE
SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a MAYO
MEDICAL LABORATORIES AND
MAYO CLINIC,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No: 15-cv-40075-IT

ORDER
July 6, 2016
TALWANI, D.J.

Plaintiffs Athena Diagnostics, Inc. and Isis Innovation Limited have filed an unopposed
Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. [#84]. The proposed Third Amended
Complaint seeks to add Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften e.V. (“MaxPlanck”) as a plaintiff, but does not otherwise alter the substantive allegations in the complaint.
Plaintiffs and Defendants, Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC and Mayo Clinic, agree that
adding Max-Planck as a plaintiff would moot Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint [#79] wherein Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to
bring their suit without the joinder of Max-Planck. Plaintiffs also request, without opposition
from Defendants, that the court proceed with its analysis of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [#25] without further written briefing and that the court
schedule a hearing on that motion.

Accordingly, in the interests of justice:
(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint [#84] is
ALLOWED. Plaintiffs shall promptly file their Third Amended Complaint.
(2) Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [#79]
is DENIED AS MOOT.
(3) The court will treat Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint [#25] as directed at the Third Amended Complaint.
(4) Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Hearing [#88] is GRANTED. A hearing on
Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [#25] is scheduled for August 2, 2016 at 10:30
a.m.
So ordered.
Date: July 6, 2016

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Court

2