In PharmaRx Pharmaceutical Inc v. GE Healthcare Inc et al., Central District of California Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer dismissed a radiopharmacy owner’s putative antitrust class action against Cardinal Health Inc. and GE Healthcare Inc., ruling the plaintiff had failed to plead its antitrust and conspiracy claims with enough specificity. In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants denied competitors effective market access when they struck a deal under which they refused to sell GE’s Myoview imaging agent and other products to class members in areas where the defendants had their own radiopharmacies, ensuring a “virtual monopoly” on Myoview sales in Southern California. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff was attempting to create a conspiracy out of a plain agreement; and that plaintiff did not allege a proper, relevant market, or that defendants had market power within the relevant market. The court agreed with defendants and dismissed the complaint, holding that the complaint was mostly filled with legal conclusions based on assumptions, and failed to cite case law stating that specific intent could be inferred from the defendants’ anti-competitive practices. The court also dismissed the complaint on the ground that it used the agreement as an example of predatory or anti-competitive conduct, without properly pleading that the agreement existed.
2 Comments