Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Egg Donor

Egg Donor

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13|Likes:
Published by Kyle Faget

More info:

Categories:Topics, Art & Design
Published by: Kyle Faget on Jul 19, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/19/2011

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISSFIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTIONCOMPLAINTCASE NO. 4:11-CV-01781 SBA
 
Megan Dixon (Cal. Bar No. 162895)HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP4 Embarcadero Center22nd FloorSan Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 374-2300Facsimile: (415) 374-2499E-Mail: megan.dixon@hoganlovells.com
 Attorneys for Defendants American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LINDSAY KAMAKAHI, an individual, onbehalf of herself and all others similarlysituated,Plaintiff,v.AMERICAN SOCIETY FORREPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE and SOCIETYFOR ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVETECHNOLOGY,Defendants.Case No. 4:11-CV-01781 SBA
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISSPLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASSACTION COMPLAINT
Date: October 18, 2011Time: 1:00 p.m.Courtroom: 1, 4th FloorJudge: Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong
Case4:11-cv-01781-SBA Document33 Filed07/15/11 Page1 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISSFIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTIONCOMPLAINT
 i
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-01781 SBA
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMSS
 TO PLAINTIFF LINDSAY KAMAKAHI AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on October 18, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. or as soon thereafteras the matter may be heard by the Court, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Saundra B.Armstrong, Defendants American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Society for AssistedReproductive Technology (collectively the “Defendants”) will and hereby do move, pursuant toRules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order dismissing Plaintiff Lindsay Kamakahi’s (“Plaintiff’s”) First Amended Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”).Defendants’ motion seeks dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure tostate a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claim that ethical guidelinespromulgated by two professional medical associations concerning compensation of egg donorsfor assisted reproductive procedures violate section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, fails fortwo reasons. First, the challenged ethical guidelines are not subject to per se analysis. Second,Plaintiff has not alleged an antitrust claim under the rule of reason because she has failed to pleadfacts supporting her assertions that the relevant product market is egg “Donor Services” and therelevant geographic market is the United States.Defendants’ motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attachedMemorandum of Points and Authorities, all orders, pleadings and papers filed in this action, anyoral argument of counsel that the Court may hear, and any other matters that may come before theCourt.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE OF COUNSEL
As required by the Court’s Standing Orders effective November 8, 2010, counsel forDefendants conferred by telephone with counsel for Plaintiff regarding this motion on July 1,2011. Plaintiff’s counsel did not consent to the motion.
Case4:11-cv-01781-SBA Document33 Filed07/15/11 Page2 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISSFIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTIONCOMPLAINT
 ii
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-01781 SBA
STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
1. Whether an antitrust plaintiff’s challenge to ethical guidelines promulgated by twoprofessional medical associations concerning compensation of egg donors for assistedreproductive procedures is subject to per se analysis under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15U.S.C. § 1.2. Whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an antitrust claim under the rule of reason when she has failed to plead facts to support her assertions that the relevant productmarket is egg “Donor Services” and the relevant geographic market is the United States.
Case4:11-cv-01781-SBA Document33 Filed07/15/11 Page3 of 30

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->