The original post was just a summary on one of the pacer monitor sites. That's why I asked for the rest on Pacer. And Marjac posted it all. It looks great to me.
IV. CONCLUSION
I note that the parties’ extensive briefing on the pending motions contained several sub-
arguments and cited to several cases not discussed above. I have reviewed those arguments and
cases and conclude that they do not warrant further discussion as they do not affect the outcome
of the pending motions.
For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the pending motions to dismiss be
DENIED:
1. The Court should deny Hikma’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
(D.I. 19.)
2. The Court should deny Hikma’s motion to dismiss the original Complaint as moot.
(D.I. 11.)
3. The Court should deny Health Net’s motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. (D.I. 30.)
This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),(C),
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1), and District of Delaware Local Rule 72.1. Any
objections to the Report and Recommendation shall be filed within fourteen days and limited to
ten pages. Any response shall be filed within fourteen days thereafter and limited to ten
pages. The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de
novo review in the district court.
The parties are directed to the Court’s “Standing Order for Objections Filed Under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72,” dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which can be found on the Court’s website
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
