IN RE AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 07-md-01871 (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20140414a50
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge. AND NOW, this 9 th day of April 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (which the Court converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment), Plaintiffs response thereto, and Defendant's Reply, and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs claims against Defendant GSK are dismissed with prejudice as MOOT in light of the Settlement Ag
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge. AND NOW, this 9 th day of April 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (which the Court converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment), Plaintiffs response thereto, and Defendant's Reply, and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs claims against Defendant GSK are dismissed with prejudice as MOOT in light of the Settlement Agr..
More
ORDER
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 9th day of April 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (which the Court converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment), Plaintiffs response thereto, and Defendant's Reply, and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs claims against Defendant GSK are dismissed with prejudice as MOOT in light of the Settlement Agreement entered into by Defendant and the Arkansas Attorney General.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc. are dismissed, for failure to prosecute, without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to reassert his claims within the applicable statute of limitations.1
It is so ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. On March 19, 2014, the Court issued an Order instructing Plaintiff that these claims would be dismissed unless Plaintiff filed a properly supported Motion for Default or otherwise showed caused why the pharmacy defendant should not be dismissed within 14 days. Plaintiff has filed no motion or response to the Order.
Source: Leagle
