§Why CasetextPricing

In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 685 MOTION TO ENFORCE FORESTS ELECTION AGAINST RELYING ON ITS SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS AND TO PRECLUDE AN ELEVENTH-HOUR CHANGE . . Document

7 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Certain Real Property & Premises Known as: 4003-4005 5th Ave.

    55 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 163 times
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a withdrawal of Fifth Amendment privilege.

  2. Unitedhealth Grp. Inc. v. Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co.

    870 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2017)   Cited 68 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that insured "bears the burden to allocate the settlement between the potentially covered [claims] and the non-covered [claims] with enough specificity to permit a reasoned judgment about liability"

  3. UnitedHealth Grp. Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co.

    47 F. Supp. 3d 863 (D. Minn. 2014)   Cited 23 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the insured could not introduce evidence of how the insured or its attorneys evaluated the claims at the time of settlement due to the insured's repeated invocation of the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine to prevent the insurers from inquiring into the insured or its counsels' subjective evaluations of the settlement

  4. In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig.

    Case No. 14-md-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016)   Cited 12 times
    Finding "good cause" to seal portions of "business strategies" document that was supported by a sworn declaration

  5. Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V.

    144 F. Supp. 3d 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 14 Civ. 1650(KBF). 11-02-2015 REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff, Counterclaim–Defendant, v. MERUS B.V., Defendant, Counterclaim–Plaintiff. Brendan Mathew O'Malley, Christopher P. Borello, Donald Joseph Curry, Michael Enzo Furrow, Robert Louis Baechtold, Robert Seth Schwartz, Scott Kenneth Reed, Susanne Lynn Flanders, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, Charles Anthony Michael, Susan E. Brune, Brune & Richard LLP, New York, NY, Nathan Nobu Lowenstein, Goldberg, Lowenstein & Weatherwax

  6. In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.

    15 Civ. 7488 (CM) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. May. 19, 2017)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    15 Civ. 7488 (CM) (JCF) 05-19-2017 IN RE NAMENDA DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION JAMES C. FRANCIS IV UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this putative class action asserting violations of antitrust law by defendants Actavis plc (now known as Allergan plc) and Forest Laboratories, LLC (together, "Forest") in connection with its patented Alzheimer's drugs Namenda IR and Namenda XR (brand names for memantine hydrochloride), the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs (the "plaintiffs")

  7. Ginns v. Towle

    361 F.2d 798 (2d Cir. 1966)   Cited 14 times

    No. 339, Docket 30269. Argued April 13, 1966. Decided June 3, 1966. Bernard Poliner, Hartford, Conn. (Cole Cole, Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellees. Charles A. Watrous, New Haven, Conn. (Bronson Watrous, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for defendants-appellants. Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and WATERMAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: This diversity action arises out of a collision in Fryeburg, Maine on July 2, 1961 between an automobile owned and operated