DOCSLIB.ORG

CITY of DELRAY BEACH, Plaintiff

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case 9:17-cv-81384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2017 Page 1 of 148 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. _____-Civ-_________________ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) PURDUE PHARMA L.P., CEPHALON, INC., ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES ) LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ) ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, ENDO ) PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JANSSEN ) PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., INSYS ) THERAPEUTICS, INC., MALLINCKRODT ) PLC, MALLINCKRODT PHARMACEUTICALS, ) AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, ) CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. and McKESSON ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) ) COMPLAINT FOR (1) VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT; (2) PUBLIC NUISANCE; (3) NEGLIGENCE; (4) UNJUST ENRICHMENT; AND (5) VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT Case 9:17-cv-81384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2017 Page 2 of 148 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. PARTIES ...........................................................................................................................11 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................12 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................13 A. Over the Course of More than Two Decades, the Manufacturing Defendants Misled the Public Regarding the Dangers of Opioid Addiction and the Efficacy of Opioids for Long-Term Use, Causing Sales and Overdose Rates to Soar ..........................................................................................13 1. Background on Opioid Overprescribing ....................................................13 2. The Fraudulent Sales Practices ..................................................................18 a. The Manufacturing Defendants Funded Front Organizations that Published and Disseminated False and Misleading Marketing Materials ....................................................18 b. The Manufacturing Defendants Paid Key Opinion Leaders and Sponsored Speakers’ Bureaus to Disseminate False and Misleading Messaging ...................................................................37 c. Senate Investigations of the Manufacturing Defendants ...............39 3. The Devastating Impact .............................................................................44 B. The Manufacturing Defendants’ Specific Unlawful Practices that Targeted Delray Beach Prescribers .......................................................................................48 1. Purdue ........................................................................................................48 a. Purdue Falsely Marketed Extended-Release Drugs as Safer and More Effective than Regular-Release Drugs ..........................49 b. Purdue Falsely Marketed Low Addiction Risk to Wide Swaths of Physicians......................................................................51 c. Purdue Funded Publications and Presentations with False and Misleading Messaging ............................................................54 d. The Guilty Pleas .............................................................................56 e. Purdue Failed to Report Suspicious Sales as Required .................59 - i - Case 9:17-cv-81384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2017 Page 3 of 148 Page 2. Janssen .......................................................................................................60 a. The FDA Warned Janssen Regarding Its False Messaging ...........61 b. Janssen Funded False Publications and Presentations ...................65 c. Janssen Failed to Report Suspicious Sales as Required.................68 3. Endo ...........................................................................................................69 a. Endo Falsely Marketed Opana ER as Crush Resistant ..................71 b. New York’s Investigation Found Endo Falsely Marketed Opana ER .......................................................................................73 c. Endo Funded False Publications and Presentations .......................76 d. The FDA Requested Endo Withdraw Opana ER Due to the Public Health Consequences of Abuse ..........................................79 e. Endo Failed to Report Suspicious Sales as Required ....................80 4. Cephalon ....................................................................................................81 a. Cephalon Falsely and Aggressively Marketed Cancer Drug Actiq to Non-Cancer Treating Physicians .....................................83 b. Government Investigations Found Cephalon Falsely Marketed Actiq for Off-Label Uses ...............................................85 c. Cephalon Falsely and Aggressively Marketed Cancer Drug Fentora to Non-Cancer Treating Physicians ..................................87 d. The FDA Warned Cephalon Regarding its False and Off- Label Marketing of Fentora ...........................................................88 e. Cephalon Funded False Publications and Presentations ................89 f. Cephalon Failed to Report Suspicious Sales as Required .............98 5. Insys ...........................................................................................................99 a. The Indictment of Insys Executives and Arrest of Its Founder ........................................................................................101 - ii - Case 9:17-cv-81384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2017 Page 4 of 148 Page b. Insys Targeted Non-Cancer Treating Physicians and Funded False Publications and Presentations ..............................103 c. Insys Failed to Report Suspicious Sales as Required ..................106 6. Mallinckrodt .............................................................................................107 a. Mallinckrodt Funded False Publications and Presentations ........109 b. The DEA Investigates Suspicious Orders ....................................111 c. Mallinckrodt Failed to Report Suspicious Sales as Required ......114 C. The Wholesaler Defendants Failed to Track and Report Suspicious Sales as Required by Florida and Federal Law .............................................................115 1. McKesson ................................................................................................117 2. Cardinal Health ........................................................................................120 3. AmerisourceBergen .................................................................................122 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ......................................................................................................124 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION .................................................................................................125 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION .....................................................................................................127 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION .................................................................................................129 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ......................................................................................................130 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..............................................................................................................142 JURY DEMAND .........................................................................................................................142 - iii - Case 9:17-cv-81384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2017 Page 5 of 148 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Florida, like many states across the country, is facing an unprecedented opioid addiction epidemic. Florida healthcare providers wrote 67.1 prescriptions for opioid medications per 100 people in 2015 and 66.6 per 100 people in 2016. Of the 33,000 people who died nationwide of opioid overdoses in 2015, approximately 12% were Floridians. On May 4, 2017, Governor Rick Scott officially declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency in Florida, stating, “The individuals struggling with drug use are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and friends and each tragic case leaves loved ones searching for answers and praying for help. Families across our nation are fighting the opioid epidemic, and Florida is going to do everything possible to help our communities.”1 2. In 2014, more than 47,000 people died in the United States from lethal drug overdoses. In 2015, that number exceeded 52,000,2 more deaths than caused by car crashes and gun homicides combined. In 2016, the number had grown to more than 64,000 – more than the number of U.S. soldiers who died during the entirety of the Vietnam War.3 Sadly, this trend shows no sign of slowing. More than three out of five of these deaths involve opioids – a dangerous, highly addictive and often lethal class of natural, synthetic and semi-synthetic painkillers. Nearly half of 1 Michael Auslen, Gov. Scott declares public health emergency over opioid crisis, Miami Herald (May 3, 2017), http://www.miamiherald.com/news/health-care/article148355444.html. 2 Rose A. Rudd, et al., Increases in Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose Deaths – United States, 2010-2015, 65 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 1445-52 (2016), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ wr/mm655051e1.htm (hereinafter “Rudd, Increases in Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose”).
Recommended publications
  • 83Rd National Headliner Awards Winners

    83Rd National Headliner Awards Winners

    83rd National Headliner Awards winners The 83rd National Headliner Award winners were announced today honoring the best journalism in newspapers, photography, radio, television and online. The awards were founded in 1934 by the Press Club of Atlantic City. The annual contest is one of the oldest and largest in the country that recognizes journalistic merit in the communications industry. Here is a list of this year's winners beginning with the Best of Show in each category: Best of show: Newspapers “Painkiller Profiteers” Eric Eyre Charleston Gazette-Mail, Charleston, W. Va. Best of show: Photography “An Assassination” Burhan Ozbilici Associated Press, New York, N.Y. Best of show: Online The Panama Papers, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a project of the Center for Public Integrity Best of show: Radio “Texas Standard: Out of the Blue: 50 Years After the UT Tower Shooting” Texas Standard staff Texas Standard, Austin, Texas Best of show: TV First place “Cosecha de Miseria (Harvest of Misery) & The Source” Staff of weather.com and Telemundo Network weather.com and Telemundo Network, New York, N.Y. DAILY NEWSPAPERS AND NEWS SYNDICATES Spot News in daily newspapers, all sizes First Place “Dallas Police Shootings” The Dallas Morning News Staff Dallas, Texas Second Place “Oakland's Ghost Ship warehouse fire” East Bay Times staff East Bay Times, San Jose, California Third Place “The Shooting Death of Philando Castile” Star Tribune staff Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Minnesota Local news beat coverage or continuing story by an individual or team First Place “The Pulse Shooting” Orlando Sentinel staff Orlando Sentinel, Orlando, Fla.
  • JUSTICE NEWS Opioid Manufacturer Insys Therapeutics Agrees to Enter

    JUSTICE NEWS Opioid Manufacturer Insys Therapeutics Agrees to Enter

    JUSTICE NEWS Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Opioid Manufacturer Insys Therapeutics Agrees to Enter $225 Million Global Resolution of Criminal and Civil Investigations Company Admits Illegal Conduct Regarding Promotion of Subsys, a Powerful Opioid Painkiller Opioid manufacturer Insys Therapeutics agreed to a global resolution to settle the government’s separate criminal and civil investigations, the Department of Justice announced today. As part of the criminal resolution, Insys will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the government, Insys’s operating subsidiary will plead guilty to five counts of mail fraud, and the company will pay a $2 million fine and $28 million in forfeiture. As part of the civil resolution, Insys agreed to pay $195 million to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act. Both the criminal and civil investigations stemmed from Insys’s payment of kickbacks and other unlawful marketing practices in connection with the marketing of Subsys. Insys’s drug Subsys is a sublingual fentanyl spray, a powerful, but highly addictive, opioid painkiller. In 2012, Subsys was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of persistent breakthrough pain in adult cancer patients who are already receiving, and tolerant to, around-the-clock opioid therapy. Today, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts filed an Information charging Insys and its operating subsidiary with five counts of mail fraud. According to the charging document, from August 2012 to June 2015, Insys began using “speaker programs” purportedly to increase brand awareness of Subsys through peer-to-peer educational lunches and dinners.
  • XCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C

    XCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C

    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) (X) ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 ( ) TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File Number 0-19034 REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) New York 13-3444607 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer Identification No) incorporation or organization) 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York 10591-6707 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code) (914) 347-7000 (Registrant's telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None (Title of Class) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock - par value $.001 per share (Title of Class) Preferred Share Purchase Rights expiring October 18, 2006 (Title of Class) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes /X/ No Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (ss. 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
  • The Pulitzer Prizes 2020 Winne

    The Pulitzer Prizes 2020 Winne

    WINNERS AND FINALISTS 1917 TO PRESENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Excerpts from the Plan of Award ..............................................................2 PULITZER PRIZES IN JOURNALISM Public Service ...........................................................................................6 Reporting ...............................................................................................24 Local Reporting .....................................................................................27 Local Reporting, Edition Time ..............................................................32 Local General or Spot News Reporting ..................................................33 General News Reporting ........................................................................36 Spot News Reporting ............................................................................38 Breaking News Reporting .....................................................................39 Local Reporting, No Edition Time .......................................................45 Local Investigative or Specialized Reporting .........................................47 Investigative Reporting ..........................................................................50 Explanatory Journalism .........................................................................61 Explanatory Reporting ...........................................................................64 Specialized Reporting .............................................................................70
  • Virginia: in the Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County

    Virginia: in the Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County

    VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES; ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PAR Case No. CL18 - __________ PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; TEVA Jury Trial Demanded PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; BARR LABORATORIES, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; ACTAVIS, LLC; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; KVK-TECH, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; IMPAX LABORATORIES, LLC; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK, LLC; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC.; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; HENRY SCHEIN, INC.; GENERAL INJECTABLES & VACCINES, INC.; INSOURCE, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CVS TN DISTRIBUTION, L.L.C.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN CO.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC; CAREMARK RX, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; OPTUM, INC.; OPTUMRX, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, by and through the undersigned attorneys, (hereinafter “Plaintiff,” “Pittsylvania
  • Surescripts, Llc As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners in No

    Surescripts, Llc As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners in No

    Nos. 19-508 and 19-825 In the Supreme Court of the United States ———————————— AMG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. ———————————— FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. CREDIT BUREAU CENTER, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. ———————————— ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH AND NINTH CIRCUITS ———————————— BRIEF OF SURESCRIPTS, LLC AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS IN NO. 19-508 AND RESPONDENTS IN NO. 19-825 ———————————— ALFRED C. PFEIFFER, JR. ROMAN MARTINEZ LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Counsel of Record 505 Montgomery Street AMANDA P. REEVES Suite 2000 ALLYSON M. MALTAS San Francisco, CA 94111 DOUGLAS C. TIFFT BLAKE E. STAFFORD JAMES A. TOMBERLIN* LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 637-2200 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae Surescripts, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................3 ARGUMENT ...............................................................5 I. The FTC Has Increasingly Wielded Section 13(b) To Obtain Monetary Relief In Antitrust Cases ................................................5 II. The FTC’s Antitrust Authority Confirms That Section 13(b) Does Not Authorize Monetary Relief ..................................................22 CONCLUSION ..........................................................32 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019) .......................................... 13 Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (2015) .............................................. 23 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................. 26 In re Cardinal Health, Inc., No. 101-0006, 2015 WL 1849040 (F.T.C. Apr. 17, 2015) ........................ 19, 20, 28, 30 Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S.
  • Fact Sheet: the House Health Repeal Bill's Impact on Pennsylvania

    Fact Sheet: the House Health Repeal Bill's Impact on Pennsylvania

    Fact Sheet: The House Health Repeal Bill’s Impact on Pennsylvania A year ago, a majority of the House of Representatives, including Representatives Mike Kelly, Scott Perry, Glenn Thompson, ​ ​ Bill Shuster, Tom Marino, Lou Barletta, Keith Rothfus, Lloyd Smucker, and Tim Murphy, voted for and passed the so-called “American Health Care Act,” or AHCA, a health repeal bill that would have cut coverage, increased costs, and eliminated protections for hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians. The bill would have imposed an “age tax,” letting insurers charge people over 50 five times more for coverage, and put the health of one in five Americans on Medicaid in jeopardy, including seniors, children, and people with disabilities. While Pennsylvanians would have lost out, the wealthy and insurance and drug companies would have gotten $600 billion in new tax breaks. AHCA Meant Pennsylvanians Would Have Lost Coverage 777,000 Pennsylvanians Would Have Lost Coverage. In 2026, 777,000 Pennsylvanians would have lost coverage under ​ ​ ​ this bill. 371,800 With Medicaid Would Have Lost Coverage. Under the American Health Care Act, 371,800 Pennsylvanians with ​ Medicaid would have lost their coverage. ​ ​ 10,800 Veterans in Pennsylvania Would Have Lost Coverage. Under the American Health Care Act, 10,800 veterans in ​ Pennsylvania would have lost their Medicaid coverage. ​ ​ AHCA Meant Pennsylvanians Would Have Paid Higher Costs, Especially Older Pennsylvanians Raise Premiums By Double Digits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that a key part of the American ​ Health Care Act, repealing the requirement that most people have health insurance, will premiums 10 percent next year. ​ ​ Though the AHCA never became law, Congressional Republicans managed to enact these changes through the GOP tax bill.
  • Antiemetic/Antivertigo Agents – Dronabinol

    Antiemetic/Antivertigo Agents – Dronabinol

    !ntiemetic/!ntivertigo !gents – dronabinol WA.PHAR.35 Antiemetic Antivertigo Agents Dronabinol Medical necessity Drug Medical Necessity Dronabinol (MARINOL®) Dronabinol may be considered medically necessary when: Dronabinol (SYNDROS®) Used for the treatment of ONE of the following 1. Anorexia associated with weight loss in adults with AIDS 2. Nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in adults Clinical policy: Drug Clinical Criteria (Initial Approval) Dronabinol (MARINOL®) 1. Anorexia associated with weight loss in adults with AIDS Dronabinol (SYNDROS®) a. Defined by ONE of the following: i. Involuntary weight loss in adults of greater than 10% of pre-illness baseline body weight ii. BMI less than 20kg/m² in the absence of concurrent illness or medical condition other than AIDS that may cause weight loss b. History of failure, contraindication or intolerance to conventional therapies (e.g. megestrol (Megace®)) c. Dose limit: i. Marinol: 20mg per day ii. Syndros: 8.4mg twice daily 2. Prescribed by or in consultation with an HIV specialist Approve for 6 months Criteria (Reauthorization) 1. Continued diagnosis of AIDS wasting with continued wasting based on reduction of BMI 2. Documentation of positive clinical benefit Approve for 6 months Clinical Criteria (Initial Approval) 1. Nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in adults a. Current diagnosis or cancer or history of cancer diagnosis in last year Policy: Dronabinol Last Updated 04/18/2018 1 b. Currently receiving chemotherapy or history of chemotherapy in the last year c. History of failure, contraindication or intolerance to conventional therapy (e.g. dexamethasone, ondansetron, aprepitant) 2. Dose limit: a. Marinol: 15mg/m² per dose for 4 to 6 doses per day b.
  • Complaint, “Chronic Pain” Means Non-Cancer Pain Lasting Three Months Or Longer

    Complaint, “Chronic Pain” Means Non-Cancer Pain Lasting Three Months Or Longer

    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................8 III. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................8 A. Plaintiff ....................................................................................................................8 B. Defendants ...............................................................................................................9 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................14 A. Defendants Used Multiple Avenues To Disseminate Their False And Deceptive Statements About Opioids. ...................................................................14 1. Defendants spread and continue to spread their false and deceptive statements through direct marketing of their branded opioids. .......................................................................................................15 2. Defendants used a diverse group of seemingly independent third parties to spread false and deceptive statements about the risks and benefits of opioids.................................................................17 a. Key Opinion Leaders (“KOLs”) ....................................................19 (1) Russell Portenoy ................................................................20
  • Official List of Members

    Official List of Members

    OFFICIAL LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES AND THEIR PLACES OF RESIDENCE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS • DECEMBER 15, 2020 Compiled by CHERYL L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the House of Representatives http://clerk.house.gov Democrats in roman (233); Republicans in italic (195); Independents and Libertarians underlined (2); vacancies (5) CA08, CA50, GA14, NC11, TX04; total 435. The number preceding the name is the Member's district. ALABAMA 1 Bradley Byrne .............................................. Fairhope 2 Martha Roby ................................................ Montgomery 3 Mike Rogers ................................................. Anniston 4 Robert B. Aderholt ....................................... Haleyville 5 Mo Brooks .................................................... Huntsville 6 Gary J. Palmer ............................................ Hoover 7 Terri A. Sewell ............................................. Birmingham ALASKA AT LARGE Don Young .................................................... Fort Yukon ARIZONA 1 Tom O'Halleran ........................................... Sedona 2 Ann Kirkpatrick .......................................... Tucson 3 Raúl M. Grijalva .......................................... Tucson 4 Paul A. Gosar ............................................... Prescott 5 Andy Biggs ................................................... Gilbert 6 David Schweikert ........................................ Fountain Hills 7 Ruben Gallego ............................................
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the MIDDLE DISTRICT of PENNSYLVANIA JACOB CORMAN, in His Official Capacity As Majority L

    IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the MIDDLE DISTRICT of PENNSYLVANIA JACOB CORMAN, in His Official Capacity As Majority L

    Case 1:18-cv-00443-CCC-KAJ-JBS Document 50 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JACOB CORMAN, in his official capacity as ) Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania Senate, ) MICHAEL FOLMER, in his official capacity ) as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Senate ) State Government Committee, LOU ) BARLETTA, RYAN COSTELLO, MIKE ) KELLY, TOM MARINO, SCOTT PERRY, ) KEITH ROTHFUS, LLOYD SMUCKER, ) and GLENN THOMPSON, ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) ROBERT TORRES, in his official capacity ) as Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth, ) and JONATHAN M. MARKS, in his official ) Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00443 capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of ) Commissions, Elections, and Legislation, ) Judge Jordan Defendants, ) Chief Judge Conner and ) Judge Simandle ) LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ) ELECTRONICALLY FILED PENNSYLVANIA; CARMEN FEBO SAN ) MIGUEL; JAMES SOLOMON; JOHN ) GREINER; JOHN CAPOWSKI; ) GRETCHEN BRANDT; THOMAS ) RENTSCHLER; MARY ELIZABETH ) LAWN; LISA ISAACS; DON ) LANCASTER; JORDI COMAS; ROBERT ) SMITH; WILLIAM MARX; RICHARD ) MANTELL; PRISCILLA MCNULTY; ) THOMAS ULRICH; ROBERT ) MCKINSTRY; MARK LICHTY; and ) LORRAINE PETROSKY, ) (Proposed) Intervenor- ) Defendants. PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS Case 1:18-cv-00443-CCC-KAJ-JBS Document 50 Filed 02/28/18 Page 2 of 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii I. Proposed Intervenors Are Entitled To Intervene as of Right .......................... 1 A. Proposed Intervenors’ Interest in this Action Is Overwhelming and the Requested Remedy Would Direct Impact Their Rights .................. 1 B. Proposed Intervenors’ Interests Are Not Adequately Represented ...... 2 II. Alternatively, the Court Should Grant Permissive Intervention ..................... 8 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................
  • Illinois Municipalities V. Purdue Pharma Et Al – Complaint [RFF]

    Illinois Municipalities V. Purdue Pharma Et Al – Complaint [RFF]

    FILED 12-Person Jury 7/19/2018 7:00 AM DOROTHY BROWN CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY, IL 2018CH09020 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION CITY OF HARVEY, VILLAGE OF BROADVIEW, Case No. 2018CH09020 VILLAGE OF CHICAGO RIDGE, VILLAGE OF DOLTON, VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES, VILLAGE OF MAYWOOD, VILLAGE OF MERRIONETTE PARK, VILLAGE OF NORTH RIVERSIDE, VILLAGE OF ORLAND PARK, CITY OF PEORIA, VILLAGE OF POSEN, VILLAGE OF RIVER GROVE, VILLAGE OF STONE PARK, and ORLAND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Plaintiffs, FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 7:00 AM 2018CH09020 v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., PURDUE PHARMA, INC., PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC., RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS, CEPHALON, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACUETICALS, INC., JANSSEN PHARMAEUTICA, INC., INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC., NORMACO, INC., ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ALLERGAN PLC, ACTAVIS PLC, WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., ACTAVIS LLC, MALLINCKRODT PLC, MALLINCKRODT LLC, AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., MCKESSON CORPORATION, PAUL MADISON, WILLIAM MCMAHON, and JOSEPH GIACCHINO, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs City of Harvey, Village of Broadview, Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates, Village of Maywood, Village of Merrionette Park, Village 1 of North Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland Fire Protection District bring this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial to obtain redress in the form of monetary and injunctive relief from Defendants for their role in the opioid epidemic that has caused widespread harm and injuries to Plaintiffs’ communities.