Case Name: 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: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1995-09-01
Citations: 65 F.3d 33
Docket Number: Nos. 94-30279, 94-30280
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.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 65
Pages: 33–34

Head Matter:
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.
Nos. 94-30279, 94-30280.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 1, 1995.
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. Broad-water, 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, Mil-stein, Hausfeld & Toll, Washington, DC, for appellees.

Opinion:
ON SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion 4/24/95, 5 Cir., 51 F.3d 524)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
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 re hearing 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. § 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 § 1367.