Abbott Laboratories, In re, s. 94-30279
| Decision Date | 01 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | 94-30280,Nos. 94-30279,s. 94-30279 |
| Parties | In re ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, Inc., and Mead Johnson & Company, Petitioners. Robin FREE and Renee Free, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, Inc., and Mead Johnson & Company, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William R. D'Armond, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, for Abbott.
Phillip A. Wittmann, John M. Landis, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann & Hutchinson, New Orleans, LA, Douglas D. Broadwater, Max R. Shulman, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for Bristol-Meyers and Mead Johnson & Co.
Patrick W. Pendley, Plaquemine, LA, Daniel E. Gustafson, Heins Mills & Olsen, Minneapolis, MN, Daniel A. Small, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, Washington, DC, for appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana; John V. Parker, Judge.
ON SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion 4/24/95, 5 Cir., 51 F.3d 524)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Treating the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc as Petitions for Panel Rehearing, the Petitions for Panel Rehearing are DENIED. No member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service of the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (FRAP and Local Rule 35), the Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.
We express no opinion regarding class certification or the exercise by the district court of discretion under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367 to decline supplemental jurisdiction should a more well developed record warrant its doing so. We decline to further explore now on this record the complexities of declining to exercise jurisdiction under Sec. 1367.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeCastro v. AWACS, Inc.
...that the adoption of § 1367(a) affected the holding in Zahn, see In Re Abbott Laboratories, 51 F.3d 524, 529 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 65 F.3d 33 (1995), and Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. v. Press Mechanical, Inc., 77 F.3d 928, 931-32 (7th Cir.1996), the court in Garcia, faced with the same c......
-
Lauchheimer v. Gulf Oil
...Inc. v. Press Mechanical, Inc., 77 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 1996); In re Abbott Laboratories, 51 F.3d 524 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 65 F.3d 33 (5th Cir.1995); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales Practices Litig., 962 F.Supp. 450, 504 (D.N.J.1997); Deep v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 944 F......
-
Garcia v. General Motors Corporation
...named plaintiffs satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. In re Abbott Labs., Inc., 51 F.3d 524, 529 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 65 F.3d 33 (1995). Faced with this issue, however, the Third Circuit decided not to disturb the Zahn holding. See Packard, 994 F.2d at 1045-46 & n. 9 (observi......
-
Borgeson v. Archer-Daniels Midland Co.
......In support of its position, however, Staley cites a recent Fifth Circuit case, In re: Abbott Laboratories, 51 F.3d 524 (5th Cir.1995) reh'g and sug. reh'g en banc denied, 65 F.3d 33 (5th ......
-
Back to the future? Product liability class actions and proposed Rule 23 changes.
...of the act. (17.) Rowe, supra note 16 at 960 n.90. (18.) 51 F.3d 524, 528-29 (5th Cir. 1995), citations omitted, reh'g en bane denied, 65 F.3d 33 (5th cir. 1995). The Fifth Circuit did not discuss the patent absurdity of overruling a well-established supreme Court decision on the basis of a......