Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NOVO NORDISK A/S; Case No.: 24cv1385-LL-VET NOVO NORDISK, INC., 12 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 13 v. (1) GRANTING NOVO NORDISK’S 14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR GOGLIA NUTRITION, LLC d/b/a 15 LEAVE TO FILE NOTICE OF G-Plans; FUTURHEALTH, INC., SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 16 Defendants. [ECF No. 47] 17 (2) GRANTING FUTURHEALTH’S 18 EX PARTE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE NOTICE OF 19 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 20 [ECF No. 49]

21 22 23 Before the Court are two ex parte applications for leave to file notice of supplemental 24 authority filed by Plaintiffs Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) [ECF 25 No. 47] and Defendant FuturHealth, Inc. [ECF No. 49]. Neither application is opposed. 26 ECF No. 48. Plaintiffs seek leave to file notice of Novo Nordisk A/S v. Ikon Health, LLC, 27 No. 4:24-CV-05093-RLP, 2026 WL 196475 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 26, 2026), and FuturHealth 28 seeks leave to file notice of Lilly v. Willow Health Servs., No. 2:25-cv-03570-AB-MAR, 1 |}2026 LX 81211 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026), to support their respective positions on 2 || FuturHealth’s pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 35]. ECF Nos. 47, 3 1/49. 4 Although neither district court opinion is binding on this Court, they are both 5 ||relevant to issues presented in the pending motion and were issued after briefing was 6 ||completed. Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 709 (2011) (quoting 18 J. Moore et al., 7 || Moore's Federal Practice § 134.02[1 ][d], p. 134-26 (3d ed. 2011)) (“A decision of a federal 8 || district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same 9 || judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case.”). Therefore, the Court, 10 its discretion, will GRANT both ex parte applications. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: February 10, 2026 NO 13 Qe | 14 Honorable Linda Lopez 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28