SCHMIDT v. SKOLAS et al

Filing 121

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT BVF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 63) IS GRANTED. DIPEXIUM DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 64) IS GRANTED. ACCESS DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 65) IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT OHR'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 66) IS GRANTED. THE MOTION (DOC. NO. 67) IS DENIED AS MOOT. XMARK DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 68) IS GRANTED. D&O DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 69) IS GRANTED. LIGAND DEFENDANTS&# 039; MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 70) IS GRANTED. TRUSTEE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 71) IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DOC. NO. 82) IS GRANTED AS TO THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED DOC. NO. 64, AND IS OTHERWISE DENIED AS MOOT. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 8/12/2013. 8/12/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED; AND MAILED TO UNREP. (ems)

Download PDF
SCHMIDT v. SKOLAS et al Doc. 121 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALAN SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN A. SKOLAS, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION No. 12-3265 ORDER AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2013, upon consideration of Defendants Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc. and Mark Lampert’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Defendants Robert DeLuccia, David Luci and Dipexium Pharmaceuticals’ Motion to Dismiss, Access Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Motion of Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. Joining and Supplementing Motions to Dismiss the Amended Verified Complaint, Defendants Xmark Capital Partners, LLC’s and Mitchell D. Kaye’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Alan W. Schmidt’s Amended Complaint, Director and Officer Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, Ligand Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Defendants Argyce LLC’s and John A. Skolas’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s responses thereto, and Defendants’ replies thereon, and following oral argument on July 10, 2013, and upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Exhibits to the Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and Defendants’ responses thereto, and for the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum dated August 12, 2013, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. BVF Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Document No. 63) is GRANTED. 2. Dipexium Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Document No. 64) is GRANTED. 3. Access Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Document No. 65) is GRANTED. Dockets.Justia.com 4. Defendant Ohr’s motion to dismiss (Document No. 66) is GRANTED. 5. The motion (Document No. 67) is DENIED as moot. 6. Xmark Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Document No. 68) is GRANTED. 7. D&O Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Document No. 69) is GRANTED. 8. Ligand Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Document No. 70) is GRANTED. 9. Trustee Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Document No. 71) is GRANTED. 10. Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Document No. 82) is GRANTED as to the exhibits attached to Document No. 64, and is otherwise DENIED as moot. 11. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. BY THE COURT: Berle M. Schiller, J. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?