Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02593/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02593-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOBY HENRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANGELINI PHARMA, INC.; TEVA 

PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; and

ENDO VENTURES LIMITED,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Angelini Pharma, Inc. (“Angelini Pharma”)

and Endo Ventures Limited’s (“Endo Ventures”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motions to 

Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) Plaintiff Toby Henry (“Plaintiff”) filed oppositions. (ECF Nos. 62, 

63.) Defendants filed replies. (ECF Nos. 67, 68.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Strike Angelini Pharma’s reply. (ECF No. 69.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff, a California resident, consumed a generic intermediate release formulation of 

trazodone hydrochloride1after his physician prescribed the drug for insomnia. (ECF No. 49 at 2.) 

After taking a 50-milligram dose of the drug on December 13, 2015, Plaintiff states that he 

developed a prolonged penile erection, also known as a priapism, which lasted over 24 hours. 

(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he was unaware that trazodone carried a risk of priapism and that he 

was also unaware of the danger of erectile dysfunction from a prolonged erection lasting greater 

than six hours. (Id.) As such, Plaintiff did not seek medical attention for over 24 hours and is 

now impotent. (Id.) 

By way of history, Plaintiff alleges that Desyrel, the brand-name intermediate release 

formulation of trazodone, was brought to market in the United States in the early 1980s. (Id. at 

9.) According to Plaintiff, the Desyrel package insert included a warning about priapism in a 

very prominent position: at the top of the warnings section and in capital letters. (Id.) Plaintiff 

alleges this prominent warning about priapism initially continued after Desyrel was replaced by 

its generic equivalent, but the priapism warning eventually diminished sometime in 2012. (Id. at 

10.) For example, Plaintiff alleges that the once-prominent priapism warning was no longer the 

highest listed, no longer capitalized, and was characterized as “rare” on the package insert for the 

trazodone he consumed in 2015. (Id.) 

Plaintiff asserts claims of strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of 

express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, and punitive damages against

Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), which is the manufacturer of the generic 

trazodone he ingested, as well as Defendants Angelini Pharma and Endo Ventures, which are 

companies that were involved “in some meaningful way” with Oleptro, a brand-name extended

release formulation of trazodone. (Id. at 2–3.)

Endo Ventures is the successor-in-interest of Labopharm Inc., the original Oleptro FDA 

New Drug Application (“NDA”) holder, and Angelini Pharma is the current NDA holder for 

1 Hereinafter, the Court will refer to trazodone hydrochloride as “trazodone” and will 

specify between generic and brand versions when necessary. 

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Oleptro. (Id. at 4–5.) Endo Ventures is an Irish pharmaceutical company with headquarters in 

Ireland and a United States headquarters in Pennsylvania. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that Endo 

Ventures placed Oleptro into the United States stream of commerce, including California. (Id.) 

Angelini Pharma is a pharmaceutical company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in 

Maryland, and Plaintiff alleges that the company has systematic and continuous contacts to 

California through marketing and placing Oleptro and other healthcare products into the stream of 

commerce. (Id. at 3–4.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Oleptro is “virtually identical” to the drug that caused his injury 

because other than being an extended release version, it has the same chemical formulation as the 

generic trazodone he took. (Id. at 11.) According to Plaintiff, Oleptro’s warning regarding 

priapism was inadequate and based on false and misleading representations. (Id. at 14, 19.) 

Plaintiff further alleges it was reasonably foreseeable that generic trazodone manufacturers would 

follow the Oleptro product labeling. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Teva, the manufacturer of 

the generic trazodone Plaintiff ingested, did in fact change its warning label to match the Oleptro 

packaging because Teva considered Oleptro to be an “innovator” in trazodone medications. (Id.

at 20.) 

II. STANDARD OF LAW 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(2) allows a party to file a motion to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the Court 

has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 

F.3d 716, 741 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom., Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015). 

Where the Court does not hold an evidentiary hearing and the motion is based on the written 

materials, Plaintiff need only establish a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). In such a case, 

“[u]ncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true” and “[c]onflicts between 

parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id.

If there is no applicable federal statute governing personal jurisdiction, the Court applies 

the law of the state in which it sits. Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601, 608–09 

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

(9th Cir. 2010). “California’s long-arm jurisdiction statute is coextensive with federal due 

process requirements.” Id. Due process requires that for nonresident defendants to be subject to 

the Court’s jurisdiction, defendants “have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such 

that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial 

justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citation omitted).

The strength of contacts required depends on which of the two categories of personal 

jurisdiction a litigant invokes: general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. A court may assert 

general personal jurisdiction over corporations “when their affiliations with the State are so 

‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear 

Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). A corporation will primarily 

be “at home” for the purposes of general jurisdiction in two paradigmatic forums: its place of 

incorporation and its principal place of business. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137

(2014). General jurisdiction is not limited to these two forums but will only be available 

elsewhere in the “exceptional case” where a corporation’s affiliations with a forum are “so 

substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State.” Id. at 139; see 

also Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2014).

Specific jurisdiction is satisfied when the defendant’s activities are directed toward the 

forum state and the defendant’s liability arises out of or relates to those activities. Daimler, 571 

U.S. at 127. In the Ninth Circuit, courts employ a three-part test to determine whether a 

defendant’s contacts suffice to establish specific jurisdiction: “(1) the nonresident defendant must 

have purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum by some 

affirmative act or conduct; (2) plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or result from the defendant’s 

forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.” Roth v. Garcia 

Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 620–21 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff bears the burden of 

satisfying the first two prongs, and if they are met, the burden shifts to Defendant “to set forth a 

‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Mavrix Photo, 647 

F.3d at 1228.

///

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

III. ANALYSIS 

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff moves to strike Angelini Pharma’s reply brief for 

exceeding the page limit. Arguably a motion to strike is not the proper mechanism for 

challenging the length of the reply. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (“The court may strike from a 

pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous 

matter.”). Nor is it clear to the Court that Angelini Pharma’s use of objections was intended to 

exceed the page limit set forth in the Court’s scheduling order. However, regardless of whether 

Angelini Pharma did in fact exceed the page limit, the Court would arrive at the same conclusions 

even if it ignores Angelini Pharma’s reply entirely. Therefore, the Court need not and does not 

consider Angelini Pharma’s reply brief or objections and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike as 

moot. (ECF No. 69.) 

Turning now to the motions to dismiss, Defendants argue that the Court lacks general or 

specific personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).

2

In opposition, Plaintiff argues 

only that the Court has specific jurisdiction over Defendants. In the alternative, Plaintiff asks the 

Court to transfer the entire action to Maryland rather than dismiss should the Court conclude that 

it lacks personal jurisdiction over Angelini Pharma and Endo Ventures. The Court will address 

general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, and transfer in turn. 

A. General Jurisdiction

Defendants argue that they are not “at home” in California for several reasons. Angelini 

Pharma asserts that it is incorporated in Delaware and its principal place of business is in 

Maryland. Angelini Pharma also asserts it has no operations, offices, or employees in California. 

Further, Angelini Pharma asserts that it did not supply the generic or brand-name version of the 

drug Plaintiff took but regardless, selling products in the forum, without more, is insufficient to 

establish general jurisdiction. Angelini Pharma asserts it ships its healthcare products nationwide, 

including to California, but its 2017 sales in at least seven other states far exceeded sales in 

2 Defendants also argue that Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for relief under Rule 

12(b)(6). Because, as will be discussed, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants, 

the Court need not and does not reach Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. 

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

California. For its part, Endo Ventures simply argues that it is an Irish limited liability company 

with its principal place of business in Ireland and any California business does not suffice to 

establish general jurisdiction.

In opposition, Plaintiff fails to respond to Defendants’ arguments regarding general 

jurisdiction. As discussed, a corporation will be “at home” for the purposes of general 

jurisdiction in its place of incorporation and its principal place of business. Daimler, 571 U.S. at 

137. Here, it is undisputed that Angelini Pharma is incorporated in Delaware and its principal

place of business is in Maryland. It is also undisputed that Endo Ventures is an Irish company 

with headquarters in Ireland and a United States headquarters in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff makes no 

effort to show that Defendants’ contacts with California are “so substantial and of such a nature 

as to render the corporation[s] at home in that State.” Id. at 139. Rather, it appears Defendants’

only alleged continuous contacts with California are shipments and marketing of Oleptro and 

other healthcare products to the state, which is insufficient without more to establish general 

jurisdiction. See id. Thus, the Court lacks general jurisdiction over Defendants. 

B. Specific Jurisdiction 

Angelini Pharma argues that Plaintiff fails to show any connection between the forum, the 

underlying controversy, and an activity by Angelini Pharma in California. Angelini Pharma

argues that even if Plaintiff can show it was involved in the warning label for Oleptro, those 

actions would have taken place in Maryland or New Jersey, and its distribution of other 

healthcare products to California residents is unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims. Endo Ventures 

similarly argues that there is no connection between Endo Ventures, Plaintiff, and California, 

especially considering that Endo Ventures was no longer the NDA holder for Oleptro in 2011 —

the year before Teva allegedly changed its package insert for the generic trazodone taken by 

Plaintiff.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Court has specific jurisdiction because “although 

Plaintiff’s claims may not have arisen out of Defendants’ contact with California, Plaintiff’s 

claim is almost certainly related to Defendant’s contact with California.” (ECF No. 62 at 11.) 

Plaintiff hinges this assertion on the conduct of one individual: Scot Van Steenburg. Plaintiff 

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

contends for the first time in his oppositions that between July 2010 and October 2011, AngeliniLabopharm — a joint venture between Labopharm (a company to which Endo Ventures is a 

successor-in-interest) and Angelini Pharma — employed Van Steenburg to market and sell 

Oleptro in the Los Angeles area. Plaintiff argues that “it is almost certain that [Van Steenburg] 

would have been well versed in the occurrence of side-effects of Oleptro . . . [and that] he would 

have relied upon information presented to the FDA in his discussions with practitioners, including 

the rate of occurrence of the priapism side-effect.” (Id.) In other words, Plaintiff argues that 

Defendants, through Van Steenburg, promoted and/or marketed Oleptro in California, and in 

doing, so perpetuated a misrepresentation about the number of priapism cases linked to trazodone. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s assertion appears to be based solely on a LinkedIn search by 

Plaintiff’s counsel that resulted in Van Steenburg’s profile.

As noted, courts in the Ninth Circuit employ a three-part test to determine whether a 

defendant’s contacts establish specific jurisdiction: “(1) the nonresident defendant must have 

purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum by some 

affirmative act or conduct; (2) plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or result from the defendant’s 

forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.” Roth, 942 F.2d at 

620–21. Plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs, and if they are met, the 

burden shifts to Defendants to set forth a “compelling case” that the exercise of jurisdiction would 

not be reasonable. Id.

Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that his claim arose, resulted from, or was even 

related to Defendants’ forum-related activities. Plaintiff’s claim arises from taking a drug in 

California that was not manufactured by Angelini Pharma or Endo Ventures. As the Court 

understands it, Plaintiff’s claim against moving Defendants is that he was injured because Teva, 

the manufacturer of the drug Plaintiff took, allegedly relied on inadequate warnings and 

misrepresentations about Oleptro in creating the warning label for the drug taken by Plaintiff. 

The trouble with this attenuated legal theory is that there is nothing that ties Plaintiff’s claim to

Defendants’ activities in California. The only California-specific action Plaintiff offers is Van 

Steenburg’s alleged marketing and selling of Oleptro in the Los Angeles area in 2010–2011 — at 

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

least a year before Plaintiff alleges the prominent warning label for trazodone diminished — and 

Plaintiff merely alleges that Van Steenburg likely perpetuated misrepresentations about the side 

effects of trazodone during that time. Plaintiff does not include any of these allegations in the 

operative complaint, and the relatively barebones, speculative, and unsubstantiated information 

derived from Van Steenburg’s LinkedIn page is not sufficient to tether Angelini Pharma and 

Endo Ventures to California. Even assuming — without having any way of knowing — that 

Plaintiff’s assertions about Van Steenburg are true, Plaintiff fails to explain how the actions of a 

single salesman in California, marketing and selling a drug Plaintiff did not take to an unknown 

number of practitioners, four to five years before an injury that was caused by a different drug 

manufactured by Teva, has anything to do with Plaintiff’s claims. Put another way, even if Van

Steenburg perpetuated misrepresentations about the side effects of trazodone during his year as an 

Oleptro salesman, there is no indication that Van Steenburg’s conduct had any effect on how 

Teva eventually labeled the trazodone product that allegedly harmed Plaintiff. 

For all these reasons, the Court finds that it lacks specific jurisdiction over Angelini 

Pharma and Endo Ventures. The Court further finds that amendment would be futile. Therefore, 

the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice. 

C. Transfer 

Plaintiff asks the Court in the alternative to transfer this action to the District of Maryland 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 rather than dismiss Angelini Pharma and Endo Ventures should the 

Court find that it lacks personal jurisdiction over them.

3

 Section 1631 states in relevant part:

Whenever a civil action is filed in a court and that court finds that 

there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of 

justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which 

the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed. 

To transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the transferor court must lack 

jurisdiction, the transferee court must be able to exercise jurisdiction, and the transfer must serve 

3 On March 6, 2020, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs in support or 

opposition of the transfer of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. All four parties submitted 

supplemental briefs, which the Court has read and considered.

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

the interests of justice. Rodriguez-Roman v. INS, 98 F.3d 416, 424 (9th Cir. 1996). A case can 

only be transferred to a district where it originally “could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

“This means the transferee court must have subject matter jurisdiction, proper venue, and 

defendant must be subject to personal jurisdiction and be amenable to service of process in that 

district.” Kennedy v. Phillips, C11-1231-MJP, 2012 WL 261612, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 

2012) (citing Shapiro v. Bonanza Hotel Co., 185 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir. 1950)). “In cases 

involving multiple defendants, the transferee district must be one in which personal jurisdiction 

and venue requirements would have been satisfied as to all defendants.” Id. (emphasis in 

original). In deciding whether to transfer rather than dismiss, courts consider whether the failure 

to transfer would prejudice the litigant and other equitable factors. Cruz-Aguilera v. I.N.S., 245 

F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiff argues that Maryland has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants. With respect 

to Angelini Pharma, Plaintiff argues that Angelini Pharma’s principal place of business is in

Maryland. With respect to Teva, Plaintiff argues that his claim relates to Teva’s contacts with 

Maryland because (1) Teva submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the 

FDA in Maryland for the generic drug that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries, and (2) the 

ANDA filing is “tightly tied, in purpose and planned effect, to the deliberate making of sales” in 

Maryland. (ECF No. 86 at 3 (citing Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms., 817 F.3d 755, 

760 (Fed. Cir. 2016).) With respect to Endo Ventures, Plaintiff argues that Endo Ventures, as 

successor-in-interest to Labopharm, is subject to specific jurisdiction because it was responsible 

for the diminished priapism warning submitted to the FDA in Maryland for Oleptro. Finally, 

Plaintiff asserts it is in the interest of justice to transfer the action because his action would be 

barred by the statute of limitations without a transfer. 

Plaintiff’s argument that Maryland has specific jurisdiction over Endo Ventures and Teva 

rests almost entirely on their submissions to the FDA. The parties do not cite a case directly on 

point, but Zeneca Ltd. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 173 F.3d 829 (Fed. Cir. 1999), is instructive. In 

Zeneca, a patentee alleged that a drug manufacturer infringed its patent by filing an ANDA for a 

generic version of the patented drug. Id. at 830. The defendant’s only contact with Maryland 

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

was the act of filing the ANDA with the FDA in Maryland. Id. The court concluded that 

Maryland lacked personal jurisdiction due to the “government contacts” exception, which 

provides that “entry into the District of Columbia by nonresidents for the purpose of contacting 

federal government agencies is not a basis for the assertion of in personam jurisdiction.” Id. at 

831. The court emphasized that “[a]llowing jurisdiction based solely on the submission of [the 

ANDA] would allow for the creation of a national judicial forum in Maryland for generic drug 

infringement cases” and “[Defendant’s] contact with Maryland arose out of the mere fortuity that 

the government agency that must receive the Petition is located in Maryland.” Id. at 832. In 

other words, the Zeneca court essentially found that the defendant’s contacts were with the 

federal government agency located in Maryland, not the state of Maryland itself. Id. 

Plaintiff relies on Acorda for a contrary conclusion. In Acorda, a brand name drug 

manufacturer brought a patent infringement claim against a generic drug manufacturer. 817 F.3d 

at 757–58. At issue was whether Delaware could assert personal jurisdiction based solely on the 

defendant’s ANDA filing in Maryland — the defendant had not yet begun marketing the drugs in 

Delaware. Id. at 759–60. The Acorda court held that Delaware had specific jurisdiction based on 

the ANDA, which the defendant filed “for the purpose of engaging in that injury-causing and 

allegedly wrongful marketing conduct in Delaware.” Id. at 760. The court reasoned that within 

the unique context of patent infringement claims, “the ANDA filings [were] tightly tied in 

purpose and planned effect, to the deliberate making of sales in Delaware” and the suit was 

“about whether that in-state activity [would] infringe valid patents.” Id. 

The Court emphasizes that neither party cites controlling Ninth Circuit authority on this 

issue. Further, unlike Zeneca and Acorda, the instant action is not a patent infringement case, and 

therefore the unique issues at play in those cases are distinct from the issues before this Court. 

However, the Court shares the Zeneca court’s concerns that asserting jurisdiction in this case 

would be contrary to the “policy against the creation of national supercourts” in Maryland and

may offend due process. Zeneca, 173 F.3d at 831. Here, Plaintiff is a California resident who 

was prescribed Teva’s generic trazodone by his physician in California, the drug was dispensed 

and ingested in California, and the resulting injury occurred in California. The Court declines to 

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

find that Teva and Endo Ventures are subject to specific jurisdiction in Maryland based on 

nothing more than their FDA filings and the unsubstantiated possibility that Teva also sold its 

drug in Maryland. Based on the limited information before this Court, it is not clear that 

Maryland can exercise personal jurisdiction over all Defendants. 

Moreover, transfer to the District of Maryland is not in the interest of justice. While 

Maryland arguably has personal jurisdiction over Angelini Pharma since Angelini Pharma’s 

principal place of business is in Maryland, it is unclear whether Maryland could exercise personal 

jurisdiction over Teva and Endo Ventures. Plaintiff also fails to argue that Maryland would be a 

proper venue. Notably, Plaintiff does not request that the Court sever the claims, but such a 

request would have been unavailing regardless. Based on the overlap in legal and factual issues 

as to all Defendants, transfer would only result in the same or similar issues being litigated in the 

Eastern District of California and the District of Maryland. Duplicative litigation does not 

promote the interests of justice. Finally, Plaintiff will not be unduly prejudiced because he may 

continue to seek relief against Teva before this Court. For all these reasons, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s request to transfer and DISMISSES Angelini Pharma and Endo Ventures from the 

action with prejudice. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED. (ECF 

Nos. 55, 56.) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to transfer the action to the District of 

Maryland and DISMISSES Angelini Pharma and Endo Ventures from the action with prejudice. 

Further, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 69.) The remaining parties 

are ordered to file a joint status report within thirty (30) days of the date of electronic filing of this 

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 30, 2020

Case 2:17-cv-02593-TLN-KJN Document 89 Filed 03/31/20 Page 11 of 11