LaF-rance Holdings ("LaFrance”) and SAJ Distributors ("SAJ”) as well, LaFrance and SAJ recently submitted a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Docket No. 60.) 2 . The Court notes that Direct Purchaser Plaintiff's complaint may suffer from another defect. Direct Purchaser Plaintiff does not dispute that neither Alza nor Johnson & Johnson sold Ditropan XL during the class period. Rather, its antitrust claim against these defendants is premised on the sales by Ortho-McNeil. In response to the Court's concern regarding the validity of a direct purchaser action that fails to name the direct seller, Direct Purchaser Plaintiff cited to Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977), Royal Printing Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 621 F.2d 323, 326 (9th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>), and In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in
holding that scottrpontzer suit was not a direct action holding that even if indirect purchasers are barred from seeking damages relief they may still obtain injunctive relief holding that illinois brick does not bar an indirect purchasers suit where the direct purchaser is a division or subsidiary of a coconspirator holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state