SPAY v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION

Filing 78

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (DOC. NO. 46) IS GRANTED AND THE COURT SHALL TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF EXHIBITS B THROUGH O, ATTACHED TO THE APRIL 20, 2012 DECLARATION OF ROBERT H. GRIFFITH. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS (DOC. NO. 58) IS DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (DOC. NO. 44) IS DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 12/20/2012. 12/21/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.
ANTHONY R. SPAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION;
CAREMARK Rx, LLC (f/k/a CAREMARK
Rx, Inc.); CAREMARK, LLC (f/k/a
CAREMARK, INC.); SILVERSCRIPT, LLC
(f/k/a SILVERSCRIPT INC.),
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 09-4672

ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2012, upon consideration of (1) the Motion by
Defendants CVS Caremark Corporation, Caremark Rx, LLC, Caremark, LLC, and Silverscript,
LLC to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Docket
Nos. 44–45), Plaintiff Anthony R. Spay’s Response in Opposition (Docket Nos. 55–56),
Defendants’ Reply Brief (Docket No. 66), Plaintiff’s Sur-reply Brief (Docket No. 74), the United
States’ Statement of Interest in Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 73),
Plaintiff’s Response to the United States’ Statement of Interest (Docket No. 75), and Defendants’
Response to the United States’ Statement of Interest (Docket No. 76); (2) Defendants’ Request
for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 46), Plaintiff’s Response to the Request for Judicial Notice
(Docket No. 59), and Defendants’ Reply Brief (Docket No. 68); and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike or, in the Alternative, Objections to Certain Exhibits to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

(Docket No. 58) and Defendants’ Response to the Motion to Strike (Docket No. 67), it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 46) is GRANTED and the
Court shall take judicial notice of Exhibits B through O, attached to the April 20,
2012 Declaration of Robert H. Griffith.

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Objections to Exhibits (Docket
No. 58) is DENIED in its entirety.

3.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Docket No. 44) is DENIED in its entirety.

It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.