In re HIV Antitrust Litigation
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 STALEY, et al., Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
v. MOTION FOR COSTS AND A STAY
OF PROCEEDINGS
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al., Docket No. 463 Defendants.
12 13 Defendants Gilead and BMS have moved for costs and a stay (against Plaintiff KPH only) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d). The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing on the motion for costs and a stay. In the exercise of its discretion, see Caldwell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-CV- 01344-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24731, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014) (noting that a court has “‘broad discretion’” under the rule), the Court DENIES the request for relief. The Court is not persuaded that KPH’s second suit reflects forum shopping or constitutes vexatious litigation. See Simeone v. First Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 971 F.2d 103, 108 (8th Cir. 1992). Moreover,…