damages claim against them. However, since all of the claims against Amgen are dismissed, the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims against it are dismissed as well. See, e.g. Spanierman Gallery, PSP v. Love, 03 Civ. 3188 VM, 2003 WL 22480055 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.31, 2003)(dis-missing plaintiff's punitive damages claim because all of the plaintiff's other claims had been dismissed); O’Hearn v. Spence-Chapin Services to Families and Children, Inc., 929 F.Supp. 136, 142 (S.D.N.Y.1996)(accord). 7 . The court may consider the parties' contract on this motion to dismiss, since it was incorporated by reference in CVS ProCare's second cross-claim for' contractual indemnity and contribution. See, e.g. International Audiotext Network, Inc. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69, 72 (2d
holding that a court in deciding a rule 12b6 motion may consider a document that is incorporated by reference into the complaint holding that a court may consider documents that have not been incorporated by reference where the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect which renders the document integral to the complaint holding that 1 the complaint is deemed to include any documents incorporated in it by reference and any document upon which it solely relies and which is integral to the complaint and that the court may consider such documents on a motion to dismiss pursuant to fedrcivp 12b6 holding that in considering a rule 12b6 motion a court may only rely on the complaint its proper attachments documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss