United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division
Rebecca Beach Smith Senior United States District Judge
matter comes before the court on the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' ("DPPs") Motion for Class
Certification for Purposes of Settlement with Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc., Appointment of Class Counsel,
Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, Approval of the
Form and Manner of Revised Notice to the Class, Appointment
of a Notice Administrator, a Stay of all Proceedings in the
MDL as against Par, and Setting the Final Settlement Schedule
and Date for a Fairness Hearing ("Motion"), and
accompanying Memorandum in Support, filed on July 15, 2019.
ECF Nos . 371, 373. On July 29, 2019, the Glenmark
Defendants and Merck Defendants filed Responses.
ECF Nos. 407, 418. On August 5, 2019, the DPPs filed a Reply.
ECF No. 466.
August 8, 2019, the Motion was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b), to conduct necessary hearings and to submit
to the undersigned district judge proposed findings of fact,
if applicable, and recommendations for the disposition of the
Motion. ECF No. 485. The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on
the Motion on September 23, 2019, ECF No. 641, and submitted
a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on October
1, 2019, ECF No. 668. No. objections to the R&R were
R&R addressed each of the seven matters raised in the
Motion. First, the R&R recommended that this court
certify the proposed settlement class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a). R&R at 14-16. Second, the R&R
noted that this court has already found that the proposed
class counsel meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and has appointed it as class counsel.
Id. at 16; ECF No. 105. Third, the R&R
recommended that this court grant preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement between the proposed settlement class and
Par, as necessary to pursue a Fairness Hearing for a
determination of final approval of the proposed settlement.
R&R at 16-17. Fourth, the R&R recommended that this
court approve the modified proposed Notice Plan, which was
attached as Exhibit B to the R&R. Id. at 17.
Fifth, the R&R recommended that this court appoint RG/2
Claims Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator, with
responsibility for carrying out the Notice Plan. Id.
at 16. Sixth, the R&R recommended that this court grant a
stay of proceedings against Par. Id. at 12. Finally,
the R&R recommended that this court schedule a Fairness
Hearing, after which the court will decide whether to grant
final approval of the proposed settlement. Id. at
16-17. These recommendations were reflected in a proposed
Order, which the Magistrate Judge approved and attached as
Exhibit A to the R&R.
of the Magistrate Judge's R&R, the parties were
advised of their right to file written objections to the
findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge
within fourteen (14) days from the date of the mailing of the
R&R to the objecting party. R&R at 17-18. Pursuant to
Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
district court, having reviewed the record in its entirety,
shall make a de novo determination of any portions
of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations to
which the Defendants have specifically objected. Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
or recommit the matter to him with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
objections to the R&R having been filed, the court
ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the findings and
recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's
thorough and well-reasoned R&R, ECF No. 668. While this
court approves of the Order and Notice, attached as Exhibits
A and B to the R&R, respectively, this court will refrain
from entering those documents until a date for the Fairness
Hearing is scheduled. Accordingly, the court
GRANTS the DPPs' Motion, ECF No. 371, as
subsequently modified. See ECF No. 649. This court
DIRECTS the Calendar Clerk to schedule a
Fairness Hearing, on a date no sooner than one-hundred (100)
days following entry of this Order.
Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this
Order to counsel for all parties .
 The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
consist of FWK Holdings, LLC; Rochester Drug Co-Operative,
Inc.; and Cesar Castillo, Inc.
 The Glenmark Defendants consist of
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
Inc., USA, the latter incorrectly identified as Glenmark
Generics Inc., USA.
 The Merck Defendants consist of Merck
& Co., Inc.; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.;
Schering-Plough Corp.; Schering Corp.; and MSP ...