In re HIV Antitrust Litigation

N.D. California

In re HIV Antitrust Litigation

DecidedJanuary 11, 2021

Docket3:19-cv-02573

StatusUnknown

This text of In re HIV Antitrust Litigation (In re HIV Antitrust Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re HIV Antitrust Litigation, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STALEY, et al., Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION FOR COSTS AND A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 10 GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al., Docket No. 463 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 Defendants Gilead and BMS have moved for costs and a stay (against Plaintiff KPH only) 15 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d). The Court finds this matter suitable for 16 resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing on the motion for costs 17 and a stay. In the exercise of its discretion, see Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-CV- 18 01344-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24731, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014) (noting that a court 19 has “‘broad discretion’” under the rule), the Court DENIES the request for relief. The Court is 20 not persuaded that KPH’s second suit reflects forum shopping or constitutes vexatious litigation. 21 See Simeone v. First Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 971 F.2d 103, 108 (8th Cir. 1992). Moreover, assuming 22 that attorney’s fees are “costs” for purposes of Rule 41(d), see Millman v. Wilmington Sav. Fund 23 Soc’y, FSB, No. 17-cv-04123-EMC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73663, at *11 n.3 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 24 2018) (noting that “the Ninth Circuit is silent on this issue, [although] several Circuit Court of 25 Appeals (Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuit Courts) have all found that attorneys’ fees are 26 /// 27 /// 1 not part of costs”), Defendants have not adequately established significant work that will be 2 useless in this second suit by KPH. See Esquivel v. Arau, 913 F. Supp. 1382, 1388, 1391 (C.D. 3 Cal. 1996). 4 This order disposes of Docket No. 463. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: January 11, 2021 9 10 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STALEY, et al., Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION FOR COSTS AND A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 10 GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al., Docket No. 463 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 Defendants Gilead and BMS have moved for costs and a stay (against Plaintiff KPH only) 15 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d). The Court finds this matter suitable for 16 resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing on the motion for costs 17 and a stay. In the exercise of its discretion, see Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-CV- 18 01344-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24731, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014) (noting that a court 19 has “‘broad discretion’” under the rule), the Court DENIES the request for relief. The Court is 20 not persuaded that KPH’s second suit reflects forum shopping or constitutes vexatious litigation. 21 See Simeone v. First Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 971 F.2d 103, 108 (8th Cir. 1992). Moreover, assuming 22 that attorney’s fees are “costs” for purposes of Rule 41(d), see Millman v. Wilmington Sav. Fund 23 Soc’y, FSB, No. 17-cv-04123-EMC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73663, at *11 n.3 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 24 2018) (noting that “the Ninth Circuit is silent on this issue, [although] several Circuit Court of 25 Appeals (Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuit Courts) have all found that attorneys’ fees are 26 /// 27 /// 1 not part of costs”), Defendants have not adequately established significant work that will be 2 useless in this second suit by KPH. See Esquivel v. Arau, 913 F. Supp. 1382, 1388, 1391 (C.D. 3 Cal. 1996). 4 This order disposes of Docket No. 463. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: January 11, 2021 9 10 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re HIV Antitrust Litigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hiv-antitrust-litigation-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack