In Re Androgel Antitrust Litigation

622 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49798, 2009 WL 1575539
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedJune 5, 2009
DocketMDL 2060
StatusPublished

This text of 622 F. Supp. 2d 1382 (In Re Androgel Antitrust Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Androgel Antitrust Litigation, 622 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49798, 2009 WL 1575539 (jpml 2009).

Opinion

ORDER DEEMING MOTION MOOT

Before the Panel is a motion by plaintiffs Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc., and Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc. (d/b/a SAJ Distributors), seeking centralization, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, of the four actions on the attached schedule in the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. 1 This matter was considered by the Panel at its hearing session in Louisville, Kentucky, on May 28, 2009. The Panel has now been advised that the listed District of New Jersey action was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, in an order filed on June 3, 2009, thus depriving this litigation of its multidistrict character.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is DEEMED MOOT.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2060 — IN RE: ANDROGEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Northern District of Georgia

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-956

Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:09-957

Meijer, Inc., et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, C.A. No. 1:09-958

District of New Jersey

Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, C.A. No. 2:09-1507

1

. The motion originally encompassed three actions in the Central District of California; however, the Central District of California transferred those actions to the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

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

Related

Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404
Multidistrict litigation
28 U.S.C. § 1407

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
622 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49798, 2009 WL 1575539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-androgel-antitrust-litigation-jpml-2009.