In re Revlimid & Thalomid Purchase Antitrust Litigation

Summary

The opinion addresses a motion to dismiss United Healthcare Services, Inc.'s Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claim against Celgene Corporation and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company in litigation concerning alleged charitable subsidy and pharmaceutical pricing practices. The court examines whether the Minnesota Private Attorney General statute provides a private cause of action and discusses the requirement that a claim benefit the public. Before resolving the issue, the court considers soliciting the Minnesota Attorney General's views regarding the scope of the Attorney General's enforcement authority.

Holdings

1. A federal district court possesses inherent authority to ask a nonparty, including a state attorney general, to submit an amicus brief on a pending legal question, even when the request is made sua sponte.
2. The court should invite the Minnesota Attorney General to submit an amicus brief addressing whether United Healthcare may use the Minnesota Private Attorney General Statute to bring its Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claim.
3. Under Ly v. Nystrom, a private plaintiff proceeding under Minnesota's Private Attorney General Statute may act only within the limits of the Minnesota Attorney General's enforcement role and must demonstrate that the cause of action benefits the public.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Minnesota Private Attorney General Statute supplies United Healthcare with a private cause of action to pursue its Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claim on the pleaded allegations.
2. Whether a federal district court may sua sponte solicit an amicus brief from a nonparty, including a state attorney general, concerning a pending legal question.
3. Whether the court should exercise that authority here in light of the Minnesota Attorney General's interest, expertise, potentially unrepresented position, and the novelty of the state-law issues.

Disposition

other