UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, LP et al

Filing 56

ORDER adopting 50 Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and granting 28 Motion to Dismiss 26 First AMENDED COMPLAINT pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); 52 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is denied on grounds of futility, as the proposed amended pleading fails to cure the deficiencies in the first amended complaint, in that, in dereliction of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), the proposed second amended complaint fails to set forth facts with sufficient specificity to support an inference that the defendants acted with intent to deceive the public. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 6/17/11. (map)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rei.. )
ALCHEMY ASSET SERVICES, INC.
)
Plaintiff-Relator,
)
)
v.
)
)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER
)
HEALTH CARE LP, and
)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC,
)
Defendants.
)

o
AND NOW, this

n~y

of

R

D

Civil Action No. 10-680

E R

~ 2011, after the plaintiff-relator, Alchemy Asset

Services, Inc., filed an amended qui tam complaint in the above-captioned case, and after the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on several grounds, including for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and after a Report and Recommendation was
issued by the United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties were accorded fourteen days in
which to file written objections thereto, and upon consideration of the objections filed by the
plaintiff-relator, as well as the defendants' response to those objections, and after independent
review of the pleadings, and upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, which is adopted and incorporated as the opinion of this Court,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Document No. 28) is granted.
Further, having reviewed the plaintiff-relator's motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint and its proposed amended pleading, as well as the defendants' brief opposing that
motion,

IT IS ORDERED the plaintiff-relator's motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint (Document No. 52) is denied on grounds of futility, as its proposed amended pleading
fails to cure the deficiencies in its first amended complaint. That is, in dereliction of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), the proposed second amended complaint fails to set forth facts with sufficient
specificity to support an inference that the defenda ts acted with intent to deceive the public.

~

Chief United States District Judge