In re: ACTIMMUNE MARKETING LITIGATION, DEBORAH JANE JARRETT v. Intermune Inc.; W. Scott Harkonen; Genentech Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ACTIMMUNE MARKETING
LITIGATION,
DEBORAH JANE JARRETT; NANCY
ISENHOWER; JEFFREY H. FRANKEL;
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY; LINDA K. RYBKOSKI,
Plaintiffs,
and
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
INTERMUNE INC.; W. SCOTT
HARKONEN; GENENTECH INC.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CONNETICS CORPORATION;
No. 10-17237
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02376-MHP
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
DEC 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.,
Defendants.
In re: ACTIMMUNE MARKETING
LITIGATION,
DEBORAH JANE JARRETT; NANCY
ISENHOWER; LINDA K. RYBKOSKI,
MARL PERLMUTTER; LISA
PERLMUTTER, Trustees of the Joan M.
Stevens Trust,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
JEFFREY H. FRANKEL; ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY;
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERMUNE INC.; W. SCOTT
HARKONEN; GENENTECH INC.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
CONNETICS CORPORATION;
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.,
No. 10-17239
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02376-MHP

-- 2 of 4 --

The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge for the U.S. District**
Court for Hawaii, sitting by designation.
Defendants.,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 29, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.**
Deborah Jane Jarrett et. al., along with third-party payor Government
Employees Health Association, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their
proposed nationwide class action suit against InterMune, Inc., Dr. Scott Harkonen,
and Genentech, Inc. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case,
we need not recount it here.
We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in the
district court’s orders. See In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., 614 F.Supp.2d 1037
(N.D. Cal. 2009) (Actimmune I); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., No. C
08-02376 MHP, 2009 WL 3740648 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009) (Patel, J.)
(Actimmune II ); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2010
WL 3463491 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) (Patel, J.) (Actimmune III).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 4 --

-- 4 of 4 --