Ranbaxy Inc. wants the First Circuit to take an immediate look at its bid to dismiss a multidistrict suit accusing the company of gaining an unfair edge by improperly securing approval for generic drugs, according to a New Year's Eve filing in Massachusetts federal court.
The drugmaker and its parent, co-defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., said the question of whether the consolidated claims are precluded by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Buckman v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee — which said the FDCA bars state law claims that are predicated on the same conduct — is one of first impression that the appellate court should consider right away. U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton allowed the bulk of the claims against Ranbaxy to move forward in a November ruling.
The appeal would be a return trip to the First Circuit, as Ranbaxy made a similar appeal after the first group of direct purchaser plaintiffs filed suit in 2015. A magistrate judge had recommended the suit proceed, despite saying the issue presented many questions of first impression arising from the interaction between the Sherman Act and the FDCA.
Plaintiff Meijer Inc. is represented by Gregory T. Arnold, Thomas M. Sobol and Kristie A. LaSalle of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve D. Shadowen, Matthew Weiner, Richard M. Brunell and Donald Sean Nation of Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Alfred Luke Smith and John D. Radice of Radice Law Firm PC, Eamon P. Kelly, John P. Bjork, Joseph M. Vanek and David P. Germaine of Sperling & Slater PC, Justin N. Boley, Tyler J. Story and Kenneth A. Wexler of Wexler Wallace LLP, Royce Zeisler, Sharon K. Robertson and Donna M. Evans of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Ethan J. Barlieb, Terence Ziegler and Joseph H. Meltzer of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.
The complete article can be accessed here.