In Re Brand-Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation

170 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17042, 2001 WL 1262053
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedOctober 19, 2001
DocketMDL-997
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 170 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (In Re Brand-Name Prescription Drugs 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 Brand-Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17042, 2001 WL 1262053 (jpml 2001).

Opinion

REMAND ORDER

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This matter is before the Panel on the defendants’ 1 motion, pursuant to Rule 7.6, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 436-38 (2001), to vacate the Panel’s order separating the Sherman Antitrust Act claims from the Robinson-Patman Act claims in the actions listed on Schedule A and conditionally remanding the Sherman Act claims to their respective transferor courts as suggested in an order entered by the transferee court. All responding plaintiffs oppose the motion to vacate and support remand of these claims.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that remand of the Sherman Act claims in these MDL-997 centralized actions is appropriate at this time. The following quotation from an earlier Panel opinion is very instructive:

*1352 The Panel’s Rules of Procedure provide that the Panel shall consider the question of remand on the motion of any party, on the suggestion of the transferee court or on the Panel’s own initiative. Rule [7.6(c) ], R.P.J.P.M.L., [199] F.R.D. [425, 437 (2001) ]. In considering the question of remand, the Panel has consistently given great weight to the transferee judge’s determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is appropriate because the transferee judge, after all, supervises the day-today pretrial proceedings. See, e.g., In re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation, 407 F.Supp. 254, 256 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1976).

In re Holiday Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation, 433 F.Supp. 1125, 1126 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1977).

Whether Section 1407 remand is appropriate for actions or claims in any particular multidistrict docket is based upon the totality of circumstances involved in that docket. In the matter now before us, Judge Charles P. Kocoras issued a suggestion of Section 1407 remand of the Sherman Act claims which explains his view that remand of these claims has become appropriate. We agree that separation and remand of the Sherman Act claims is now appropriate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the Sherman Act claims in the actions listed on the attached Schedule A are separated and remanded from the Northern District of Illinois to their respective transferor courts.

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Illinois

Ladas Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:94-7431 (ALS, C.A. No. 1:94-394)

Yesterday’s Pharmacy, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-7329 (ALS, C.A. No. 1:95-262)

Kelly Namour, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-5689 (ARE, C.A. No. 1:95-23)

Kelly Namour, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:94-2899 (ARE, C.A. No. 4:94-139)

Joe McCutcheon’s Health Services, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-158 (ARE, C.A. No. 4:94-728)

Lawrence Adams, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-2805 (ARE, C.A. No. 4:95-153)

Jones Drug Co., Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-4812 (AZ, C.A. No. 4:95-189)

Paradise Drugs Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-1001 (CAN, C.A. No. 5:94-20819)

Bob’s Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-2617 (CAN, C.A. No. 5:95-20105)

Medical Building Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-3298 (CO, C.A. No. 1:95-746)

Allard’s Bell Park Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-2582 (CT, C.A. No. 3:94-1995)

A.P.R. Drug, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-3333 (CT, C.A. No. 3:95-551)

Edgehill Dmgs, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95— 5413 (DE, C.A. No. 1:95-195)

Ossi’s Apothecary, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:96-1150 (FLM, C.A. No. 3:95-1031)

Bobo’s Drugs, Inc., et al. v. American Home Products Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:94-5449 (FLM, C.A. No. 6:94-726)

*1353 Mims Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:94— 7586 (FLM, C.A. No. 6:94-1088)

Mims Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-3266 (FLM„ C.A. No. 6:95-336)

Chipley Drugs, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:94-3263 (FLN, C.A. No. 5:94-50354)

Ace Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:94-1667 (GAS, C.A. No. 5:94-6)

Anthony B. Meadows, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., 1:95-37 (GAS, C.A. No. 5:94-85)

Ace Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-2934 (GAS, C.A. No. 5:95-24)

Adams Drug Store, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-2932 (GAS, C.A. No. 5:95-31)

Thompson Dean Drug, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:96-6963 (IAN, C.A. No. 5:95-4012)

Alexander Drug Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-159 (ID, C.A. No. 1:94-462)

Ronald Baker, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1: 95-1874 (ID, C.A. No. 1:95-58)

Broadway Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1: 95-3242 (ID, C.A. No. 1:95-154)

Chastains, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1: 95-1873 (ID, C.A. No. 3:95-50)

Austin Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1: 95-751 (INS, C.A. No. 1:94-1966)

Butt Rexall Drugs, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1: 95-2923 (INS, C.A. No. 1:95-412)

Agler Drug Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-482 (KS, C.A. No. 5:94-4194)

Bill Bond Pharmacies, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-520 (KS, C.A. No. 5:94-4233)

F & M Drug Co., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-1506 (KS, C.A. No. 5:94-4256)

Byrne’s Pharmacy, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:95-3241 (KS, C.A. No. 5:95-4046)

Ardery Drug, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 1:94-7752 (KYE, C.A. No. 3:94-76)

Arthur G. Jacob, et al. v.

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

Related

Silva v. Equifax, Inc.
N.D. Georgia, 2022
Eustice v. Equifax Inc.
N.D. Georgia, 2022
HUTCHINSON v. EQUIFAX, INC.
N.D. Georgia, 2022
Adams v. Equifax, Inc.
N.D. Georgia, 2022
Khalaf v. Equifax Inc.
N.D. Georgia, 2022
FLOWERS v. EQUIFAX, INC.
N.D. Georgia, 2022
In Re Brand-Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation
264 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17042, 2001 WL 1262053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brand-name-prescription-drugs-antitrust-litigation-jpml-2001.