Exela-Pharma-Sciences-LLC-v.-Sandoz-Inc

Case Study > Exela-Pharma-Sciences-LLC-v.-Sandoz-Inc

Tunku Abdul Rahman University LAW 1001 THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 3], and the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or, in the Alternative, Stay the Case Pending Referral to FDA [Doc. 29]. I. PROCEDURAL BACKG ...[Show More]

Tunku Abdul Rahman University
LAW 1001

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 3], and the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or, in the Alternative, Stay the Case Pending Referral to FDA [Doc. 29].
I.	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 6, 2019, Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC, (the “Plaintiff”),
initiated this action against Sandoz, Inc., (the “Defendant”), asserting claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1,
et seq.	(“Chapter 75”); tortious interference with prospective business
advantage in violation of North Carolina common law; and false advertising and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). [Doc. 1]. Along with the Complaint, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the

Case 1:19-cv-00318-MR Document 42 Filed 09/15/20 Page 1 of 48
2
immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction requiring the Defendant to recall and take all necessary steps to
recover, remove from interstate commerce, and cease the sale of all the
Defendant’s L-Cysteine product. [Doc. 3]. In support of its motion, the
Plaintiff relies upon the allegations of its Complaint, as verified by the
Plaintiff’s manager, Phanesh Koneru,1 as well as several exhibits.
The Court held a hearing on the Plaintiff’s request for a temporary
restraining order on November 7, 2019. On November 12, 2019, the Court
issued an Order denying the Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining
order, finding that the Plaintiff failed to show “its entitlement to such relief.”
[Doc. 16 at 9]. Nevertheless, the Court held the Plaintiff’s request for a
preliminary injunction in abeyance pending further presentation of evidence
and briefing by the parties. [Id. at 13].
On December 6, 2019, the Defendant filed a Response in Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 31] and a Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint or, in the Alternative, Stay the Case Pending Referral
to FDA [Doc. 29]. On December 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Repl