Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-4730.
August 2, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss in this antitrust case. Most of the issues involved have recently been decided by my colleague Judge Robreno in his March 2, 2004 ruling inBellevue Drug Co. v. Advance PCS, C.A. No. 03-4731 (E.D. Pa. March 2, 2004). I agree with Judge Robreno's rulings, and see no need to repeat that discussion here.
With respect to the issues not addressed in the Bellevue Drug Co. opinion, I have concluded as follows: BFF and NCPA do have standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Com., 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); Pennsylvania Psychiatric Soc'y v. Green Spring Health Servs., 280 F.3d 278 (3d Cir. 2002). I further conclude that the averments of the complaint with respect to the parental control of Merck Co., Inc. over the defendant Medco Health Solutions, Inc. are, as a matter of pleading, sufficient to withstand dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
An order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of August 2004, upon consideration of defendants' motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs' response, IT IS ORDERED:1. That the motions of the defendants Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and Merck Co., Inc. to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint are DENIED.