Apotex Corp. v. Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited

Background

On January 6, 2020, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Apotex’s antitrust claims. The Court then directed the parties to submit briefing on whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after the federal claims providing original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

The remaining claims included Apotex’s contract claims. The opinion also referred to the defendants’ unresolved motion to dismiss Apotex’s claim for punitive damages. The parties’ briefing indicated that these claims involved potentially unsettled issues of New York law.

Analysis

The Court explained that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. In deciding whether to do so, the Court considered judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts.

The Court concluded that those factors favored declining jurisdiction. Fairness and respect for state courts weighed heavily toward having state courts provide a more certain interpretation of the potentially unsettled New York-law issues. Judicial economy and convenience also favored dismissal because the case was far from ready for trial, substantial discovery and pretrial litigation remained, and discovery could continue in state court. Discovery already completed could be incorporated into the state-court proceedings at the state court’s direction.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the case in its entirety, without prejudice to refiling the remaining claims in state court. The Court ordered that pending motions were moot and should be terminated, canceled all conferences, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.