United States of America v. McKesson Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:15-cv-00903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Adam Hart v. McKesson Corporation, Judge Abrams entered final judgment for defendants after Hart declined to amend.
Adam Hart and the United States, as plaintiffs, and McKesson Corporation and the other defendants. The action was closed and final judgment was entered for the defendants.
What happened
Adam Hart, acting for the United States, sued McKesson Corporation and other defendants. After Hart filed a second amended complaint, McKesson moved to dismiss it.
The court had granted McKesson’s motion without prejudice to Hart filing another amendment. Hart then notified the court that he would not file a third amended complaint and asked the court to make its earlier non-final order final and appealable.
Judge Ronnie Abrams entered final judgment for the defendants and directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. This order does not explain the reasoning of the earlier order granting McKesson’s motion.
The detailed version
- United States of America v. McKesson Corporation · No. 1:15-cv-00903
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
Relator Adam Hart filed a second amended complaint in an action brought by the United States and Hart against McKesson Corporation and other defendants. McKesson moved to dismiss that complaint.
On March 28, 2023, the Court entered an opinion and order granting McKesson’s motion without prejudice to Hart’s further amendment of the complaint. Hart later filed a notice stating that he did not intend to file a third amended complaint. He instead sought to make the Court’s earlier non-final order final and appealable by disclaiming any intent to amend.
Ruling
The Court entered final judgment for the defendants and directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. The order cites the federal rule requiring final judgment to be set out in a separate document. This order does not describe the reasoning or merits analysis of the March 28 order.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it makes the earlier ruling final after Hart declined to amend and closes the action; the present order does not decide the underlying legal questions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.