COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION et al

Filing 23

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS IN C.A. 10-1637 IS GRANTED AS TO THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA'S CLAIM ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND DENIED AS TO ITS CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 10/26/2011; 10/27/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED TO LIAISON COUNSEL. (SEE PAPER # 1899 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
: Case No. 10-1637
County of Santa Clara v. GSK
:
__________________________________________:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of October 2011, upon review of Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. No. 8], Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition [Doc. No. 13], and Defendant’s Reply
[Doc. No 16], and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the County of Santa
Clara’s claim on its own behalf, and DENIED as to its claim on behalf of the people of
California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
____________________________
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.