Whitehill v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

E.D. Missouri

Whitehill v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

DecidedMay 30, 2024

Docket4:23-cv-01030

StatusUnknown

This text of Whitehill v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (Whitehill v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whitehill v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, (E.D. Mo. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS WHITEHILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-1030-MTS ) ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS ) LP, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP’s briefing in support of its Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [13], relied on Kiel v. Mayo Clinic Health System Southeast Minnesota, 685 F. Supp. 3d 770 (D. Minn. 2023). See, e.g., Doc. [25] at 10 (arguing Plaintiff’s case “is no different than” the plaintiff’s case in Kiel, which that court dismissed). Defendant, however, did not inform the Court that an appeal had been docketed in that case. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment in Kiel and remanded the case for further proceedings. See Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, 23- 2994, 2024 WL 2498263 (8th Cir. May 24, 2024). Defendant has yet to inform the Court of that reversal. Because Defendant has represented that this action is no different than Kiel, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [13], is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have through Friday, June 14, 2024, to file its answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Thomas Whitehill’s Complaint, Doc. [6]. Dated this 30th of May 2024. | | i / ATTHEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS WHITEHILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-1030-MTS ) ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS ) LP, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP’s briefing in support of its Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [13], relied on Kiel v. Mayo Clinic Health System Southeast Minnesota, 685 F. Supp. 3d 770 (D. Minn. 2023). See, e.g., Doc. [25] at 10 (arguing Plaintiff’s case “is no different than” the plaintiff’s case in Kiel, which that court dismissed). Defendant, however, did not inform the Court that an appeal had been docketed in that case. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment in Kiel and remanded the case for further proceedings. See Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, 23- 2994, 2024 WL 2498263 (8th Cir. May 24, 2024). Defendant has yet to inform the Court of that reversal. Because Defendant has represented that this action is no different than Kiel, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. [13], is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have through Friday, June 14, 2024, to file its answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Thomas Whitehill’s Complaint, Doc. [6]. Dated this 30th of May 2024. | | i / ATTHEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Whitehill v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehill-v-astrazeneca-pharmaceuticals-lp-moed-2024.