![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
July 26, 1985
No. IP 83-1862-C
This cause is before the Court upon the motions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Aceto Chemical Company, Inc. (Aceto) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, those motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Memorandum of Law
Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) filed this lawsuit against Aceto, the EPA, and the EPA's administrator. Lilly has alleged that this action arises under the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq., as amended. Lilly further alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case pursuant to 28 [**2] U.S.C. § 1331 and 7 U.S.C. § 136n(c).
The EPA and Aceto have sought to have this action dismissed through motions filed on May 21, 1985, and June 5, 1985, respectively. ] This Court is required to dismiss an action whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties, or otherwise, that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter. Rule 12(h) (3), F.R.Civ.P.
Count I of Lilly's complaint alleges that the EPA, in issuing and maintaining registrations of certain pesticide products of Aceto, considered health, safety, and efficacy data submitted earlier by Lilly, without Lilly's permission and without requiring Aceto to offer to compensate Lilly for the use of its data. Lilly also contends that the EPA considered previously submitted Lilly trade secret data in support of the pertinent Aceto registrations, without Lilly's permission. Finally, Lilly alleges that the EPA relied on Lilly research data to issue and maintain the pertinent Aceto registrations without determining that the relevant Lilly and Aceto products are analytically comparable (i.e., identical or substantially similar or different only in ways that would not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse [**3] effects on the environment). Lilly makes no constitutional challenges to FIFRA in this count of its complaint, but rather contends that the above [*815] alleged EPA actions violate the statute itself.
Of course, ] on a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations of the complaint are to be taken as true, the complaint being construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mathers Fund, Inc. v. Colwell Co., 564 F.2d 780, 783 (7th Cir. 1977).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
615 F. Supp. 811 *; 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17450 **
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LEE M. THOMAS, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 1 ACETO CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., Defendants
registrant, pesticide, trade secret, provisions, private citizen, trifluralin, cancel, products, register, alleges, subject matter jurisdiction, administrative remedy, exhaust, suits, district court, deprived, notice, cause of action, citizen suit, contends, rights, statute of limitations, bring suit, challenges, disclose, issuance, lawsuit
Civil Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, General Overview, Responses, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Governments, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, Business & Corporate Compliance, Environmental Law, Hazardous Wastes & Toxic Substances, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act, Pesticides, Legislation, Interpretation, Federal & State Interrelationships, Federal Common Law, Enactment, Justiciability, Standing, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Reviewability, Exhaustion of Remedies, Exhaustion of Remedies, Administrative Remedies, Reviewable Agency Action, Business & Corporate Law, Agency Relationships, Termination, Ripeness, Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights, Fundamental Rights, Eminent Domain & Takings, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Substantive Due Process, Scope, Trade Secrets Law, Trade Secret Determination Factors, Property Rights, Contracts Law, Personal Property, Rights of Possessors, Statute of Limitations, Admiralty & Maritime Law, Practice & Procedure, Pleadings, Complaints, Torts, Liability, Claim Presentation, Time Limitations, Federal Tort Claims Act, Procedural Matters, Tolling of Statute of Limitations, Discovery Rule, Tolling