Here are the materials in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Cherokee Nation (D. Mass.):

62 GlaxoSmithKline Motion

63 US Memorandum

65 Cherokee Nation Motion

68 GlaxoSmithKline Reply

70 Cherokee Nation Reply

79 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The dispute in this case centers on a 2012 settlement agreement entered into by Plaintiff GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GlaxoSmithKline” or “GSK”) in connection with its plea in a  criminal proceeding, United States of America v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Criminal Action  No. 12-10206-RWZ (D. Mass). GlaxoSmithKline now seeks a declaratory judgment that claims brought by the Cherokee Nation in the District Court of the Cherokee Nation were released by the settlement agreement. Presently at issue are GlaxoSmithKline’s Renewed Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [#61] and the Cherokee Nation’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [#64]. For the following reasons, GlaxoSmithKline’s motion is DENIED and the Cherokee Nation’s motion is ALLOWED.

We posted the complaint here.

 

Here is the complaint in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Cherokee Nation (D. Mass.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

By filing suit in the Tribal Court for conduct relating to the marketing, sale and promotion of Avandia, the Cherokee Nation breached the Avandia Settlement Agreement in three ways. First, the Avandia Settlement Agreement clearly specifies that the exclusive jurisdiction and venue over disputes under the Avandia Settlement Agreement are vested in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Filing suit in the Tribal Court was a breach of this exclusive jurisdiction and venue provision. Second, the Cherokee Nation’s suit runs afoul of the Avandia Settlement Agreement because it asserts claims that were released under the Avandia Settlement Agreement. Third, the suit purports to seek relief under the “statutory, common, and decisional laws of the Cherokee Nation,” notwithstanding that disputes under the Settlement Agreement are “governed under the laws of the United States.”