ALLIED SERVICES DIVISION WELFARE FUND v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF ALLIED SERVICES DIVISION WELFARE FUND IN C.A. 09-730 IS DENIED; PLAINTIFF SHALL PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER INDICATING WHETHER IT WISHES TO WITHDRAW ITS OPPOSED MOTIO N FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF UFCW LOCAL 1776 IN C.A. 10-2475 IS DENIED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIMS OF UNITED BENEFIT FUND IN C.A. 10-5419 IS DENIED IN SUBSTANTIAL PART; THE UTPCLP CLAIM ASSE RTED ON ITS OWN BEHALF IS DISMISSED; UNITED BENEFIT FUND'S NEW YORK STATE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THE MOTIONS TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 10/22/2013; 10/24/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO LIAISON COUNSEL. (SEE PAPER # 3619 IN 07-MD-1871). (tjd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
In re: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES
: AVANDIA MDL 1871
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
: 2007-MD-1871
LITIGATION
:
__________________________________________:
:
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
:
:
Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. GSK
:
09-CV-730
:
UFCW Local 1776 and Participating Employers
:
Health and Welfare Fund v. GSK
:
10-CV-2475
:
United Benefit Fund v. GSK
:
10-CV-5419
__________________________________________:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of October 2013, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motions
to Dismiss the claims of the above named Plaintiffs, and all responses, replies, sur-replies, and
supplemental authority submitted, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Motion to Dismiss the claims of Allied Services Division Welfare Fund

[Case No. 09-730, Doc. No. 19] is DENIED. In light of this ruling, Allied Services shall
provide a status report to the Court, within 14 days of the date of this Order, indicating whether
or not it wishes to withdraw its opposed Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.
2.

The Motion to Dismiss the claims of UFCW Local 1776 [Case No. 10-2475, Doc.

No. 16] is DENIED.
3.

The Motion to Dismiss the claims of United Benefit Fund [Case No. 10-5419,

Doc. No. 6] is DENIED in substantial part. However, having found that United Benefit Fund
lacks standing to assert a claim on its own behalf under Pennsylvania’s UTPCLP, its UTPCLP
claim asserted on its own behalf is DISMISSED. Having found that United Benefit Fund has

failed to state a claim on its own behalf under the consumer protection laws of any state except
New York, those state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
4.

To the extent that the Motions ask the Court to strike the class allegations

contained in the complaints, the Court finds a ruling on the viability of the class allegations
would be premature, and accordingly DENIES the motions to strike class allegations without
prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
_____________________________
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.