FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC. et al

Filing 120

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO SEVER (DOC.NOS.57,58) ARE GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS ACTION SHALL BE SEVERED INTO TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS. THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S ('FTC') INFORMAL REQUEST THAT I TRANSFER THE SEVERED ACTIONS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE FTC'S ORIGINAL ACTION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1440, SHALL REMAIN OPEN ONLY WITH REGARD TO: DEFENDANTS: ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, TEIKOKU PHARMA USA, INC.; TEIKOK U SEIYAKU CO., LTD.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; AND ALLERGAN PLC. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL TERMINATE DEFENDANT IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. I WILL RETAIN CONTROL OF THE CASE. THE FTC SHALL FILE IN CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1440, NO LATER THAN 11/3/16, AN AMEND ED COMPLAINT STRIKING THE REFERENCES TO, AND CLAIMS AGAINST, DEFENDANT IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. THE FTC SHALL FILE WITH THIS COURT, NO LATER THAN 11/3/16, A NEW COMPLAINT NAMING AS DEFENDANTS: ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC; AND IM PAX LABORATORIES, INC. THIS COMPLAINT SHALL INCLUDE CLAIMS AGAINST ONLY THESE DEFENDANTS. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL ASSIGN THIS COMPLAINT A NEW CIVIL ACTION NUMBER AND SHALL ASSIGN THE CASE TO ME. BOTH COMPLAINTS SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FILED AS OF 3/30/16. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM [#69] AND DEFENDANT ALLERGAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION [#70] ARE DENIED AS MOOT. DEFENDANTS MAY REFILE THEIR MOTIONS TO DISMISS IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINTS FILED IN THEIR ACTIONS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 10/20/16. 10/20/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(fdc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al. Defendants. : : : : : : : Civ. No. 16-1440 ORDER AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2016, upon consideration of Defendant Watson’s Motion to Sever (Doc. No. 57), Defendant Impax’s Motion to Sever (Doc. No. 58), Defendant Endo’s Joinder in Defendants’ Motions to Sever (Doc. No. 61), the FTC’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Sever (Doc. No. 73), Defendant Impax’s Reply (Doc. No. 76), Defendant Watson’s Reply (Doc. No. 79), and the FTC’s Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 84), and all related submissions, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Sever (Doc. Nos. 57, 58) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. This action shall be SEVERED into two separate actions. 2. The FTC’s informal request that I transfer the severed actions is DENIED without prejudice. 3. The FTC’s original action, Civil Action No. 16-1440, shall REMAIN OPEN only with regard to Defendants: Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo International plc, Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.; Teikoku Seiyaku Co.; Ltd.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; and Allergan plc. The CLERK OF COURT shall TERMINATE Defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. I will RETAIN control of the case. 4. The FTC shall FILE in Civil Action No. 16-1440, no later than November 3, 2016, an Amended Complaint striking the references to, and claims against, Defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. 5. The FTC shall FILE with this Court, no later than November 3, 2016, a new Complaint naming as Defendants: Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo International plc; and Impax Laboratories, Inc. This Complaint shall include claims against only these Defendants. The Clerk of Court shall ASSIGN this Complaint a new Civil Action Number and shall ASSIGN the case to me. 6. Both Complaints shall BE DEEMED to have been filed as of March 30, 2016. 7. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. No. 69) and Defendant Allergan’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 70) are DENIED as moot. Defendants may refile their Motions to Dismiss in response to the Complaints filed in their actions. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Paul S. Diamond ____________________________ Paul S. Diamond, 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?