Government Employees Health v. Intermune Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 30, 2011
Docket09-56847
StatusUnpublished

This text of Government Employees Health v. Intermune Inc. (Government Employees Health v. Intermune Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Government Employees Health v. Intermune Inc., (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ACTIMMUNE MARKETING No. 10-17237 LITIGATION, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02376-MHP

DEBORAH JANE JARRETT; NANCY ISENHOWER; JEFFREY H. FRANKEL; MEMORANDUM * ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; LINDA K. RYBKOSKI,

Plaintiffs,

and

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

INTERMUNE INC.; W. SCOTT HARKONEN; GENENTECH INC.,

Defendants - Appellees,

CONNETICS CORPORATION;

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.,

Defendants.

In re: ACTIMMUNE MARKETING No. 10-17239 LITIGATION, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02376-MHP

DEBORAH JANE JARRETT; NANCY ISENHOWER; LINDA K. RYBKOSKI, MARL PERLMUTTER; LISA PERLMUTTER, Trustees of the Joan M. Stevens Trust,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

JEFFREY H. FRANKEL; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC.,

CONNETICS CORPORATION; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Defendants.,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Marilyn H. Patel, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 29, 2011 San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.**

Deborah Jane Jarrett et. al., along with third-party payor Government

Employees Health Association, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their

proposed nationwide class action suit against InterMune, Inc., Dr. Scott Harkonen,

and Genentech, Inc. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case,

we need not recount it here.

We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in the

district court’s orders. See In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., 614 F.Supp.2d 1037

(N.D. Cal. 2009) (Actimmune I); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., No. C

08-02376 MHP, 2009 WL 3740648 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009) (Patel, J.)

(Actimmune II ); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2010

WL 3463491 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) (Patel, J.) (Actimmune III).

AFFIRMED.

** The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Hawaii, sitting by designation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Actimmune Marketing Litigation
614 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (N.D. California, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Government Employees Health v. Intermune Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/government-employees-health-v-intermune-inc-ca9-2011.