In Teamsters Local 404 Health Services & Insurance Plan v. King Pharmaceuticals, the Teamsters Local 404 Health Services & Insurance Plan ("Teamsters Plan") had commenced a proceeding, seeking pre-action discovery under CPLR 3102(c). It sought to obtain settlement agreement, licensing agreements and any other related agreements between King Pharmaceuticals , Meridian Technologies, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc., the respondents in the proceeding (collectively, the "Respondents") and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. ("Teva"), which documents would assist Teamsters Plan in drafting a complaint by bringing to light certain "pay-for- delay" or "reverse-payment" agreements under which the Respondents were paid to hold off bringing a generic EpiPen to market until June 2015, which agreements Teamsters Plan contended violated state consumer protection laws and state and federal antitrust laws. King Pharmaceutical attempted to remove the proceeding to federal court and to dismiss because such pre-action disclosure was not available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court remanded the case to state court, holding that there was no federal question jurisdiction and that diversity jurisdiction was barred by 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)'s "forum defendant" rule. That rule provides that when a defendant resides in the state in which the action is commenced, the defendant cannot remove the case to federal court.
The Second Circuit affirmed, but on different grounds. The Court held that a proceeding brought under CPLR 3102 does not state a substantive cause of action, which is required for a case to be removable.
The decision in this case can be found here.
(Apologies are in order. This post has been sitting in draft version since mid-October. I neglected to push the Publish button. Sorry.)
No comments:
Post a Comment