Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, No. 05-14054 (11th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 3, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 05-14054 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 99-01317-MD-PAS VALLEY DRUG COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, TRUSTEES OF THE CORRECTION OFFICERS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION SECURITY BENEFITS FUND- RETIREES, CORRECTIONS OFFICERS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION SECURITY BENEFITS FUNDS ACTIVE,, TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 445 FREIGHT DIVISION WELFARE FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE LOCAL 445 CONSTRUCTION DIVISION WELFARD FUND, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, BLUECROSS BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF MINNESOTA, BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, CAREFIRST, FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, HEALTH CARE SERVICES CORPORATION, MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus GENEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (May 3, 2006) Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In this class action, the district court, pursuant to a settlement agreement that had been negotiated and would be presented to the court for approval, established April 11, 2005, as the deadline for the claims administrator s receipt of opt-out requests. Appellants missed this deadline and moved the court for Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) relief so that they could take their claims elsewhere. The court held a hearing on appellants motions, considered the parties submissions and arguments, and denied the motions. Appellants appeal the court s rulings. We review the district court s decision for abuse of discretion. After 2 considering the parties briefs and the relevant portions of the record, we find no such abuse. AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.