TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC. v. SPIRIDON SPIREAS
Filing
34
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 16 ) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 16) IS GRANTED ON THE FRAUD/MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM IN COUNT I, AND THIS CLAIM IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJ UDICE. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 16) IS DENIED ON PLAINTIFFS BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM IN COUNT II. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 16) IS GRANTED ON THE BREACH OF THE DUTY OF LOYALTY CLAIM IN COUNT III, AND THIS CLAIM IS DISMISS ED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 16) IS GRANTED ON THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM IN COUNT IV, AND THIS CLAIM IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 16) IS GRANTED ON THE CONVERSION CLA IM IN COUNT V, AND THIS CLAIM IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 16) IS DENIED ON PLAINTIFFS MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED CLAIM IN COUNT VI. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO JOIN MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 19. PLAINTIFF IS GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT. PLAINTIFF IS GIVEN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER IN WHICH TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. 10. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO RESPOND TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS OF PLAINTIFF FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, SHOULD PLAINTIFF ELECT NOT TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITHIN FORTY-FOUR (44) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO FILE AN ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS IN COUNTS II AND VI. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 10/3/17. 10/4/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(va, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.,
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-0452
Plaintiff,
v.
SPIRIDON SPIREAS,
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2017, upon consideration of the Complaint (Doc.
No. 1), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16), the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. No. 18), Defendant’s Reply Brief in Support of His Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 23), and
in accordance with the Opinion issued by the Court on this day, it is ORDERED that
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
as follows:
1. Defendant’s
Motion
to
Dismiss
(Doc.
No.
16)
is
GRANTED
on
the
fraud/misrepresentation claim in Count I, and this claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED on Plaintiff’s breach of
contract claim in Count II.
3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED on the breach of the duty of
loyalty claim in Count III, and this claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED on the breach of fiduciary
duty claim in Count IV, and this claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
1
5. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED on the conversion claim in
Count V, and this claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
6. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED on Plaintiff’s money had and
received claim in Count VI.
7. Plaintiff is ORDERED to join Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
8. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with the Opinion
of the Court.
9. Plaintiff is given thirty (30) days from the date of this Order in which to file an Amended
Complaint.
10. Defendant is ORDERED to respond to an Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days
of Plaintiff filing an Amended Complaint or, should Plaintiff elect not to file an Amended
Complaint, within forty-four (44) days from the date of this Order to file an Answer to
Plaintiff’s claims in Counts II and VI.
BY THE COURT:
/ s / J oel H. S l om s k y
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, 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?