Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 64 Report and Recommendation, Teva's 67 Objections OVERRULED; 38 Motion to Dismiss filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. DENIED. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 8/10/2017. (slo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ARALEZ PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
ARALEZ PHARMACEUTICALS
TRADING DAC, ARALEZ
PHARMACEUTICALS US INC., POZEN
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:17-CV-00071-JRG-RSP

ORDER
The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Before the Court is the Report and

Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Payne on July 17, 2017 (Dkt. No. 64) recommending
that Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Teva”) Motion to Dismiss for
Improper Venue (Dkt. No. 38) be denied. Defendant Teva has filed an objection seeking
reconsideration of the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 67.) The Court has reviewed the
Report and Recommendation de novo and finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended
disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Davidson v. Georgia-Pac., L.L.C., 819 F.3d 758, 762 (5th
Cir. 2016); United States v. Toney, No. 16-CR-43-JPS, 2016 WL 3945358, at *1 (E.D. Wis. July
19, 2016) (noting that a motion to dismiss for improper venue is a dispositive motion), aff'd sub
nom. United States v. Haslage, 853 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2017).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) Teva’s objections (Dkt. No. 67) are OVERRULED.
(2) Magistrate Judge Payne’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64) is ADOPTED.
(3) Teva’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 38) is DENIED.

So Ordered this
Aug 10, 2017

2