Tevra Brands, LLC v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-04683
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Tevra Brands v. Elanco Animal Health, Judge Freeman stayed the antitrust case pending a Ninth Circuit mandate and vacated the case-management conference.
Tevra Brands, Elanco Animal Health Incorporated, and Elanco US, Inc. The entire case is paused until the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate in the related Bayer appeal; Tevra’s amended complaint is due within 30 days after that mandate, and the scheduled case-management conference was vacated.
What happened
Tevra Brands sued Elanco, alleging that Elanco used exclusionary practices to keep generic competitors out of the market for certain flea and tick treatments. The court had previously dismissed Tevra’s complaint but allowed Tevra to amend it. A related case against Bayer was pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
Tevra asked to pause this case until the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in the Bayer appeal. Tevra said a pause would avoid unnecessary expense and effort. Elanco argued that amendment would be futile while the Bayer judgment remained in place, but agreed that other activity, including discovery, should be paused if the court extended the amendment deadline.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Tevra’s motion to stay. She stayed the entire case until the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate, required Tevra to file an amended complaint within 30 days after that mandate, and vacated the April 10, 2025 case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Tevra Brands, LLC v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated · No. 5:24-cv-04683
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
Tevra filed this antitrust lawsuit against Elanco Animal Health Incorporated and Elanco US, Inc. Tevra alleged that Elanco engaged in exclusionary practices that substantially prevented generic competitors from entering the market for “squeeze-on” imidacloprid topical flea and tick treatments for dogs and cats.
The court had previously granted Elanco’s motion to dismiss Tevra’s complaint with leave to amend. The court found that Tevra’s claims were barred by claim preclusion and issue preclusion based on the judgment in Tevra’s earlier antitrust case against Bayer, and also found that the claims were inadequately pleaded. The court nevertheless concluded that Tevra might be able to correct deficiencies identified for the first time in this action.
The earlier Bayer case was on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Tevra asked the court to stay this case and connect the deadline for an amended complaint to the Ninth Circuit’s mandate—the formal notice returning jurisdiction to the district court after the appeal.
Arguments
Tevra argued that a stay would avoid unnecessary expense and effort and conserve judicial resources while the Ninth Circuit considered the Bayer judgment. Tevra also asserted that it would face hardship if required to proceed because Elanco would oppose discovery as soon as Tevra requested it.
Elanco argued that amending the complaint would be futile while the Bayer judgment remained in effect. Elanco asked the court to enter judgment against Tevra while the Bayer case was on appeal. Elanco also stated that it agreed other activity in this case, particularly discovery, should be stayed if the court extended the amendment deadline until after the appeal.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the three factors from Landis v. North American Co. for deciding whether to stay a case: possible harm from the stay, hardship to a party required to proceed, and whether a stay would promote an orderly and efficient resolution of the issues.
The court found that all three factors favored a stay. First, Elanco had not argued that it would be prejudiced by a stay. Second, Tevra identified at least some hardship from having to proceed while the Ninth Circuit reviewed the Bayer judgment, including the anticipated dispute over discovery. Third, a stay would promote consistency and judicial economy. The court explained that a reversal in the Bayer case could allow both cases to proceed, while an affirmance could stop both cases from moving forward.
Order
The court GRANTED Tevra’s motion to stay. It STAYED this case in its entirety pending the Ninth Circuit’s mandate in the earlier Bayer case. Tevra’s amended complaint must be filed within 30 days after that mandate. The court also VACATED AS MOOT the case-management conference scheduled for April 10, 2025.
This order addressed the request to pause the case and related scheduling matters; it did not decide the underlying antitrust claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.