Filed: Aug. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MARK R. HORNAK , District Judge . On June 22, 2015, the above captioned case was filed in this Court and was referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.C and 72.D of the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. Thereafter, the actions at 2: 15-cv-941 and 2:15-cv-1539 were consolidated into this action. (ECF Nos. 38, 61). On May 10, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MARK R. HORNAK , District Judge . On June 22, 2015, the above captioned case was filed in this Court and was referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.C and 72.D of the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. Thereafter, the actions at 2: 15-cv-941 and 2:15-cv-1539 were consolidated into this action. (ECF Nos. 38, 61). On May 10, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia R..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MARK R. HORNAK, District Judge.
On June 22, 2015, the above captioned case was filed in this Court and was referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.C and 72.D of the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. Thereafter, the actions at 2: 15-cv-941 and 2:15-cv-1539 were consolidated into this action. (ECF Nos. 38, 61).
On May 10, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 75) in which she recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Procedure (ECF No. 54) be granted; that the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 39) be dismissed with prejudice; and that the remaining two pending motions — Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 42) and Defendant Mylan N.V.'s Motion to Deny Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55 errata 56) — be denied as moot. Plaintiffs filed timely Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 76), and Defendants have filed timely Responses to such Objections, (ECF No. 77).
After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the Report and Recommendation and Objections/Responses thereto, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 12TH of August, 2016, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 54) is GRANTED and the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 39) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 42) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Mylan N.V.'s Motion to Deny Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55 errata 56) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this CASE CLOSED.
