Lynn v. Purdue Pharma Co.
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12404 (June 7, 2004)

- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Brian Lynn (plaintiff) brought a class action against Purdue Pharma Co. (Purdue) (defendant) for violation of the New Mexico Antitrust and Unfair Practices Act and for unjust enrichment, claiming that Purdue’s unfair practices forced users of OxyContin to pay inflated prices for the drug. Lynn filed his claim in New Mexico state court, but Purdue removed the case to federal court sitting in New Mexico and then promptly moved to transfer the proceedings to the Southern District of New York. Purdue also filed a Notice of Multidistrict Litigation to inform the court that two other OxyContin antitrust cases in Connecticut had been transferred to the Southern District of New York, where 23 related cases were already pending and 18 additional cases in other jurisdictions were being considered for transfer. Purdue also expressed its intent to have the present case identified as a tag-along case to those Southern District of New York cases, which would likely result in a conditional transfer order issued by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. While Purdue pursued the transfer to the Southern District of New York, Lynn sought to remand the matter back to state court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hansen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.