In re HIV Antitrust Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 IN RE HIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC

ORDER RE CHOICE OF LAW FOR

UNITED’S CLAIMS Docket Nos. 1721, 1723

12 13 Currently pending before the Court is a dispute between Defendants and United as to which state’s laws govern United’s state law claims. United asserts that its claims are governed by Minnesota law because it overpaid for the HIV drugs at issue from Minnesota where it is based – notwithstanding the fact that many of its insureds who requested the drugs, received the drugs, and used the drugs live outside of Minnesota, including in states that did not repeal Illinois Brick.2 Defendants argue that Minnesota law does not apply across the board and that the law that governs is that of the state where a given insured lives. If Defendants are correct, then United could not seek damages where its claims are related to an insured who lives in a non-repealer state. Having considered the parties’ briefs…