Pedinol Pharmacal, Inc. v. Rising Pharmaceuticals

Full title: PEDINOL PHARMACAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. RISING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Nov 13, 2007

CV 06-2120 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2007)

Opinion

CV 06-2120.

November 13, 2007

MORITT HOCK HAMROFF HOROWITZ LLP, BY: MICHAEL S. RE, ESQ., Attorneys for Plaintiff, Garden City, New York.

HANOR GUERRA, BY: CHARLES W. HANOR, San Antonio, TX, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

LEEDS MORELLI BROWN, BY: RICK OSTROVE, ESQ., Carle Place, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK, P.C., BY: MARK S. MULHOLLAND, Uniondale, NY, Attorneys for Defendant Rising Pharmaceuticals.

MCDERMOTT WILL EMORY, LLP, BY: THEODORE R. STEPHENS, ESQ., Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendant Rising Pharmaceuticals.

THE LUSTIGMAN FIRM, P.C., BY: SCOTT SHAFFER, ESQ., Attorneys for Defendant Rising Pharmaceuticals, New York, New York.

BRACKEN, MARGOLIN GOUVIS, LLP, BY: LINDA U. MARGOLIN, ESQ., Islandia, NY, Attorneys for Defendant Rising Pharmaceuticals.

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, BY: BARRY J BRETT, ESQ., New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant Gold.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEONARD WEXLER, Senior District Judge

This is a case alleging false advertising and unfair competition commenced by Plaintiff Pedinol Pharmacal, Inc. ("Pedinol" or "Plaintiff") against Defendant Rising Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rising" or "Defendant"). Presently before the court is the objection to the decision of Magistrate Judge Tomlinson dated October 5, 2007, allowing amendment of the complaint to name Ronald Gold as an individual Defendant herein.

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this court shall modify or set aside any part of the order appealed from that is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." FRCP 72(a). This court has reviewed the objections and the order and concludes that it should be affirmed. Accordingly, the objections are hereby overruled and the order of Magistrate Judge Tomlinson is affirmed.

SO ORDERED.