INCUBADORA MEXICANA, SA DE CV v. ZOETIS, INC., 15-216. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150918894
Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER WENDY BEETLESTONE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant Zoetis Inc.'s and Pfizer Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29); Plaintiffs' response thereto (ECF No. 32); and Defendants' reply (ECF No. 33), it is ORDERED that: (1) The Defendants' motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; (2) The motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 19 is DENIED; (3) Plaintiffs' claims in Count One (negligence)
Summary: ORDER WENDY BEETLESTONE , District Judge . AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant Zoetis Inc.'s and Pfizer Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29); Plaintiffs' response thereto (ECF No. 32); and Defendants' reply (ECF No. 33), it is ORDERED that: (1) The Defendants' motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; (2) The motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 19 is DENIED; (3) Plaintiffs' claims in Count One (negligence),..
More
ORDER
WENDY BEETLESTONE, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant Zoetis Inc.'s and Pfizer Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29); Plaintiffs' response thereto (ECF No. 32); and Defendants' reply (ECF No. 33), it is ORDERED that:
(1) The Defendants' motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;
(2) The motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 19 is DENIED;
(3) Plaintiffs' claims in Count One (negligence), Count Two (negligent hiring and supervision), Count Nine (negligent misrepresentation), and Count Ten (strict liability) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
(4) The motions to dismiss Count Three (breach of express warranty) and Count Six (breach of implied warranties of merchantability and/or fitness for a particular purchase) are DENIED with respect to Defendant Zoetis, Inc. and GRANTED with respect to Defendant Pfizer, Inc.; Plaintiffs' claims in Count Three and Count Five are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE against Defendant Pfizer;
(5) The motion to dismiss Count Seven (unjust enrichment) is DENIED;
(6) The Plaintiffs' claims in Count Eight (fraud) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
