Leonard v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Background

Cheri Leonard sued CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC. She alleges that the Defendants misbranded, contaminated, and illegally sold over-the-counter guaifenesin products. Her five causes of action are breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraud, violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. They argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Amneal, that the claims were preempted, that the complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and that Leonard lacked standing. They also moved to stay discovery until the court resolved the motion to dismiss.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause. The court applied a two-part test: whether the pending motion could dispose of the entire case, or at least the issue targeted by discovery, and whether the motion could be decided without additional discovery.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the Defendants satisfied both parts of the test. The motion to dismiss could dispose of the entire case if granted in full. The court rejected Leonard’s argument that the motion was unlikely to succeed, explaining that likelihood of success is not the standard for deciding whether to stay discovery.

The court also found that no discovery was needed to decide the motion to dismiss. Leonard agreed that the motion could be resolved without discovery but argued that she might later need discovery concerning personal jurisdiction to support an amended complaint. The court determined that the possible usefulness of discovery later in the case did not affect the present analysis and that Leonard had not identified disputed facts relevant to jurisdiction at that time.

Disposition

The court granted the Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss itself or resolve the merits of Leonard’s claims.