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, )

Download PDF
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

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?