ALLERGAN SALES, LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 2:15-CV-01471-JRG-RSP (Lead). (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20170811f41
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 10, 2017
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Plaintiffs object to Magistrate Judge Payne's recommendation that Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be denied. Dkt. 218. Having reviewed Plaintiffs' objections, and having considered Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Plaintiffs object to Magistrate Judge Payne's recommendation that Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be denied. Dkt. 218. Having reviewed Plaintiffs' objections, and having considered Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly,..
More
ORDER
RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge.
Plaintiffs object to Magistrate Judge Payne's recommendation that Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be denied. Dkt. 218. Having reviewed Plaintiffs' objections, and having considered Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court finds no reason to reject or modify the recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiffs' objections, Dkt. 218, are OVERRULED.
(2) Magistrate Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 197, is ADOPTED.
(3) Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Teva for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Dkt. 146, is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
