Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMay 3, 2006
Docket05-14054
StatusUnpublished

This text of Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals (Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, (11th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-14054 MAY 3, 2006 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK ________________________

D. C. Docket No. 99-01317-MD-PAS

VALLEY DRUG COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

TRUSTEES OF THE CORRECTION OFFICERS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION SECURITY BENEFITS FUND- RETIREES, CORRECTIONS OFFICERS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION SECURITY BENEFITS FUNDS ACTIVE,, TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 445 FREIGHT DIVISION WELFARE FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 445 CONSTRUCTION DIVISION WELFARD FUND, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, BLUECROSS BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF MINNESOTA, BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, CAREFIRST, FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, HEALTH CARE SERVICES CORPORATION, MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus

GENEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, ABBOTT LABORATORIES,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________

(May 3, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this class action, the district court, pursuant to a settlement agreement that

had been negotiated and would be presented to the court for approval, established

April 11, 2005, as the deadline for the claims administrator’s receipt of opt-out

requests. Appellants missed this deadline and moved the court for Fed. R. Civ. P.

6(b) relief – so that they could take their claims elsewhere. The court held a

hearing on appellants’ motions, considered the parties submissions and arguments,

and denied the motions. Appellants appeal the court’s rulings.

We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. After

2 considering the parties briefs and the relevant portions of the record, we find no

such abuse.

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valley-drug-co-v-geneva-pharmaceuticals-ca11-2006.