Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Aventis Pharma SA et al
Plaintiff: Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc
Defendant: Aventis Pharma SA, Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc, DOES and Sanofi-Aventis SA
213) 894-7819 (fax: U.S. DOJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case Number: 5:2009cv00023
Filed: November 14, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Office: Eastern Division - Riverside Office
Presiding Judge: Marvin J. Garbis
Presiding Judge: Oswald Parada
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 31 U.S.C. ยง 3729 False Claims Act

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 3, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 661 OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani, re: Defendants Aventis Pharma S.A., Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis S.A. (collectively "Defendants") Supplemental Submission Pursuant to the Court' s November 13, 2020 Fee Amount Order against Plaintiff Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 634 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Submission is GRANTED in part. Specifically, Defendants are awarded $17,203,703 for fees, expenses, and interest for work performed in this case from October 28, 2011, when the Complaint was unsealed, through November 13, 2020, when the Court issued its Fee Order. (see document for further details) (hr)
May 16, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 452 SHOW CAUSE PROCEDURAL ORDER by Judge Marvin J. Garbis. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 5/20/2016. By June 13, Amphastar and counsel shall file a response to the Show Cause Order [ECF No. 450]. By July 7, Aventis shall file a reply. By July 21, Amphastar and counsel may file any sur-reply. The Court shall arrange a telephone conference to discuss, in light of the aforesaid filings, such further proceedings as may be appropriate. (mrgo)
May 4, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 450 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED by Judge Marvin J. Garbis. (See document for specifics.) (iva)
July 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 380 SUPERSEDING DECISION RE: JURISDICTION by Judge Marvin J. Garbis. (See document for specifics) (mrgo)
July 13, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 379 JUDGMENT by Judge Marvin J. Garbis related to: Decision Re: Jurisdiction 378 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (See document for specifics.) (iva)
November 14, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 78 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Marvin J. Garbis RE MOTION to Dismiss 43 : (see document image for further details). For the foregoing reasons: 1. Defendants Request for Judicial Notice [Document 44] is GRANTED; 2. Defendants Motion to Dismiss False Claims Act Qui Tam Complaint [Document 43-1] is GRANTED IN PART. a. The False Claims Act Qui Tam Complaint [Document 43-1] is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. b. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint to add allegations pertaining to the filing of false claims18 by November 30, 2012; 3. Plaintiff shall arrange a telephone conference tobe held by November 30, 2012, to discuss the scheduling of further proceedings. SO ORDERED. (ad)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Aventis Pharma SA et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc
Represented By: Taylor Crellin Foss
Represented By: Jennifer A Mauri
Represented By: Joseph J Mellema
Represented By: Jan P Weir
Represented By: Douglas Quinton Hahn
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Aventis Pharma SA
Represented By: Stephen C Payne
Represented By: M Sean Royall
Represented By: James L Zelenay, Jr
Represented By: Monique M Drake
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc
Represented By: Stephen C Payne
Represented By: M Sean Royall
Represented By: James L Zelenay, Jr
Represented By: Monique M Drake
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: DOES
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Sanofi-Aventis SA
Represented By: Stephen C Payne
Represented By: M Sean Royall
Represented By: James L Zelenay, Jr
Represented By: Monique M Drake
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
213) 894-7819 (fax: U.S. DOJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Represented By: Joyce R Branda
Represented By: Linda A Kontos
Represented By: J Gary Plessman
Represented By: Wendy L Weiss
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?