Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • GV-04-001288 Order On Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment - 1

    Uploaded by

    Govtfraudlawyer
    265 views5 pages
    Texas, Medicaid, AWP, Summary Judgment, TMFPA

    Original Title

    GV-04-001288 Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment_1

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Texas, Medicaid, AWP, Summary Judgment, TMFPA

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    265 views5 pages

    GV-04-001288 Order On Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment - 1

    Uploaded by

    Govtfraudlawyer
    Texas, Medicaid, AWP, Summary Judgment, TMFPA

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5
    cor¥ CAUSE NO, D-1-GV-04-001288, ‘THE STATE OF TEXAS ex re 5 INTHE DSTRICT COURT ALLEN JONES, ' Pint ; : v ; 250" JUDICIAL DISTRICT ; Eaeeenttr teen ' Fle in The Distret Court PHARMACEUTICAL, INC, 3 of Travis County, Texas ORTHO-MENEIL : PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. 5 MAR - 3 2011 AMC MCNEIL CONSUMER & SPECIALTY ’ PHARMACEUTICALS, dANSSEN- ; = ‘ORTHO, LLG, ad JOHNSON & : ae SOHNSON, INC, ' Defendants ‘ “TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS: ORDER. s. SUMMARY JUDGMENT (On Febmary 23,2011 the Court heard Defendants’ rational Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, and Paints Traditional and No Evidence Motions for Prial Summary Judgment. The Court has considered the ‘motions, the responses, the summary judgment evidence, andthe arguments of couse Plait objections to the summary judgment attached to Defendans' Reply is SUSTAINED. ‘With respect to Defendants! Objections to the Evidence Attached to Plaintiff’ Motions for ‘Summary Judgment, Defendants’ Objections in Section I are SUSTAINED. Defendants’ ‘objections in Sections I Il, and 1V are moot because those motions for partial semmary judgment were not submitted tothe Court, As to Defendants’ Objections to Excerpts from the Deposition of Curtis Burch, the Court OVERRULES those objections; however the Court has considered Mr. Burch's testimony as Plaintiff’ characterization ofthat testimony in the Response is considered only as argument. (DAN: TION, 107 MARY JUD Defendants moved for traditional summary judgment on the following grounds: |. Plaintiffs claim based on a false certification of compliance Preempted; the FDC. 2. Plaintiffs! TMFPA claims for restitution and penalties fail because the conduct alleged does not constitute an "unlawful at” under TMFPA; 3. Plaintiff’ TMFPA claims also fail because Plaintiffs cannot proved that any Risperdal reimbursements resulted from Defendants alleged unlawful acts; 4, Plaintiffs common law claims fail as a matter of la 9) Plaintffs' common law claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation cannot be sustained forthe same reasons that their TMFPA claims fail: ») Plaintiffs equitable claims for monies had and received cannot be sustained: ©) Plantfis' fiduciary duty claims cannot be sustained because plaintiffs cannot prove defendants engaged in any conduct that influenced TMAP Developers)

    You might also like