Replies to post #135770 on Biotech Values

[marthambles]

I gather that is in District Court, not CAFC? Nothing on CAFC site so far.

Why would the District Court stay the effect of its TRO. That would simply vacate the effect of the TRO. If he believed it appropriate to grant in the first place, by staying the TRO he is allowing the irreparable harm to occur.

It makes no sense.

[mouton29]

What I posted is from the Court of Appeals website. In fact, in the District Court, the Court on the 20th denied Amphastar's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. I could post the full decision but in view of the Appeals court action and that fact that it is an image file that I would have to OCR, I will hold off. Here is the docket entry:

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: "In accordance with the foregoing, 1) defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or Transfer (Docket No. 100 ) is DENIED, and 2) plaintiffs' Conditional Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery if the Court Finds the Present Record Insufficient (Docket No. 67 ) is DENIED as moot. So ordered."(Moore, Kellyann) (Entered: 01/20/2012)