AETNA, INC. et al v. INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC. et al

Filing 54

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT FANTOS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 6 ) IS GRANTED, AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST FANTO ARE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. DEFENDANT ROWANS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 4 ) IS GRANTED, AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST ROWAN ARE DISM ISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. DEFENDANT LEES MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 43 ) IS GRANTED, AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST LEE ARE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. DEFENDANT LEES MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS (DOC. NO. 42 ) AND FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6) (DOC. NO. 43 AT 8-17) ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT. DEFENDANT INSYSS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS OF NEGLIGENT MISREPRESEN TATION (COUNT VI) AND NEGLIGENCE (COUNT VII), AND THESE CLAIMS ARE DISMISSEDWITH PREJUDICE. DEFENDANT INSYSS MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. DEFENDANT INSYSS MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIEDWITHOUT PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 8/23/18. 8/24/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PARTIES AND E-MAILED. (va, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
AETNA AND AETNA HEALTH
:
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-4812
:
INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC. et al.,
:
Defendant.
:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of August 2018, upon consideration of Defendants Joseph A.
Rowan, Steve Fanto, Insys Therapeutics Inc., and Sunrise Lee’s Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos.
4, 6, 10, 42, and 43), and the responses, replies, and letters of supplemental authority thereto, it is
hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Fanto’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED, and all claims
against Fanto are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction.
2. Defendant Rowan’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED, and all claims
against Rowan are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction.
3. Defendant Lee’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 43) is GRANTED, and all claims
against Lee are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction.
4. Defendant Lee’s Motions to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process (Doc. No. 42)
and “Failure to State a Cause” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
(Doc. No. 43 at 8-17) are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
5. Defendant Insys’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims
of negligent misrepresentation (Count VI) and negligence (Count VII), and these
claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

6. Defendant Insys’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in all other respects.
7. Defendant Insys’s Motion to Strike is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
_____________________
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

2