County of Los Angeles and the People of the State of California v. CVS Health Corporation et al
| County of Los Angeles and the People of the State of California |
| CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Longs Drugs Stores California, L.L.C., Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., Walgreen Co., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation and Thrifty Payless, Inc. |
| 1:2022op45032 |
| November 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Dan Aaron Polster (MDL 2804) |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Attorney Appearance by Stacey M. Leyton and Connie K. Chan filed on behalf of County of Los Angeles and the People of the State of California. (P,R) |
| Filing 1 Complaint with jury demand against CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., Longs Drugs Stores California, L.L.C., Rite Aid Corporation, Thrifty Payless, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.. Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-11704471. Plaintiff has indicated that case may be related to pending civil action 17-md-2804. Filed by County of Los Angeles and the People of the State of California. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Finberg, James) |
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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
