ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, 15-cv-40075-IT. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20160711c21
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER INDIRA TALWANI , District Judge . Plaintiffs Athena Diagnostics, Inc. and Isis Innovation Limited have filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint . [#84]. The proposed Third Amended Complaint seeks to add Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften e.V. ("Max-Planck") as a plaintiff, but does not otherwise alter the substantive allegations in the complaint. Plaintiffs and Defendants, Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC and Mayo Clinic, agree tha
Summary: ORDER INDIRA TALWANI , District Judge . Plaintiffs Athena Diagnostics, Inc. and Isis Innovation Limited have filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint . [#84]. The proposed Third Amended Complaint seeks to add Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften e.V. ("Max-Planck") as a plaintiff, but does not otherwise alter the substantive allegations in the complaint. Plaintiffs and Defendants, Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC and Mayo Clinic, agree that..
More
ORDER
INDIRA TALWANI, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Athena Diagnostics, Inc. and Isis Innovation Limited have filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. [#84]. The proposed Third Amended Complaint seeks to add Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften e.V. ("Max-Planck") as a plaintiff, but does not otherwise alter the substantive allegations in the complaint. Plaintiffs and Defendants, Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC and Mayo Clinic, agree that adding Max-Planck as a plaintiff would moot Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [#79] wherein Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their suit without the joinder of Max-Planck. Plaintiffs also request, without opposition from Defendants, that the court proceed with its analysis of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [#25] without further written briefing and that the court schedule a hearing on that motion.
Accordingly, in the interests of justice:
(1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint [#84] is ALLOWED. Plaintiffs shall promptly file their Third Amended Complaint.
(2) Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [#79] is DENIED AS MOOT.
(3) The court will treat Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [#25] as directed at the Third Amended Complaint.
(4) Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Hearing [#88] is GRANTED. A hearing on Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [#25] is scheduled for August 2, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.
So ordered.
Source: Leagle