Repleading Unnecessary When Substituting Defendant’s Successor-in-Interest

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend the caption of the proceeding to reflect the proceeding was against a defendant’s successor-in-interest and rejected defendants’ contention that repleading was required. “The parties agree that Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. is the successor-in-interest of Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., and Ranbaxy does not oppose including Sun as a Defendant as its successor-in-interest. Ranbaxy, however, asserts that Plaintiffs should be required to formally amend their Complaint to name Sun as a Defendant in order ‘to allow Sun to assess, and then answer, move, or otherwise respond to the allegations that the King Drug Plaintiffs intend to allege against Sun.’ Requiring a formal amendment of the complaint and a reopening of the pleadings based on an amendment designed simply to address a corporate restructuring would not be in the interests of judicial economy, particularly with trial approaching. Sun, as a mere successor-in-interest to Ranbaxy, may not relitigate claims and defenses that have already been litigated by Ranbaxy.”

King Drug Company Of Florence, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al, 2-06-cv-01797 (PAED 2018-06-07, Order) (Mitchell S. Goldberg)

2018-06-11T13:20:04+00:00 June 11th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|