Other Statutes Cases filed in the Second Circuit Courts
Cases 1 - 10 of 43
In Re: Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation
as 1:2018md02819
Defendant: Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation
Plaintiff: Allergan, Inc., 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund, 1199SEIU Licensed Practical Nurses Welfare Fund and others
In Re: In Re: Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation
Interested Party: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Petitioner: Akorn Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2018cv04361
Defendant: Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and others
Plaintiff: Drogueria Betances, LLC, H-E-B LP, Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., and others
Consolidated Plaintiff: Law Enforcement Health Benefits Inc., Turlock Irrigation District and UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund
Respondent: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Not Classified By Court: Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., OptumRX, Inc. and others
Interested Party: Caremark PHC, LLC and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)
In Re: Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2015cv03278
Plaintiff: American Sales Company, LLC, Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc.
Consolidated Plaintiff: Cesar Castillo, Inc.
Defendant: Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)
IN RE ACTOS END PAYOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION
as 1:2014cv02846
Defendant: Actavis plc, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda America Holdings, Inc. and others
Plaintiff: Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund and Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare Fund
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)
Gill v. Viatris Inc. et al
as 5:2021cv01187
Plaintiff: Michael Gill
Defendant: Viatris Inc., Mylan Specialty L.P., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
County Of Westchester v. Actavis Holdco US, Inc. et al
as 7:2021cv07893
Plaintiff: County Of Westchester
Defendant: Actavis Holdco US, Inc., Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
County of Albany et al v. Actavis Holdco US, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv01650
Defendant: Bausch Health Americas, Inc., Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and others
Plaintiff: County of Schuyler, City of Mobile, WCA Group Health Trust and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2015cv07488
Defendant: Merz GmbH & Co. KGaA., Actavis, plc, Forest Laboratories LLC and others
Plaintiff: JM Smith Corporation On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated doing business as Smith Drug Company
Interested Party: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd.
Not Classified By Court: AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Cardinal Health, Inc. and others
Consolidated Plaintiff: Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
County of Suffolk v. Actavis Holdco US, Inc. et al
as 2:2020cv04009
Defendant: Bausch Health Americas, Inc., Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pliva, Inc. and others
Plaintiff: County of Suffolk and Wockhardt USA LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
Connecticut et al v. Sandoz, Inc. et al
as 3:2020cv00802
Defendant: Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Mallinckrodt PLC, Pfizer, Inc. and others
Plaintiff: State of New Mexico, State of Missouri, State of Washington and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1

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?