Cases 41 - 47 of 47
Feather River Tribal Health, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al
as 1:2019op45334
Defendant:
Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Beverly Sackler and others
Plaintiff:
Feather River Tribal Health, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Wilkes-Barre Township, Pennsylvania v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al
as 1:2019op45325
Defendant:
Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc., Beverly Sackler, Richard S. Sackler and others
Plaintiff:
Wilkes-Barre Township, Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
City of Charles Town v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. et al
as 1:2019op45250
Defendant:
Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Anda, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
City of Charles Town
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Triple D Corporation v. Takata Corporation et al (PLR1)
as 3:2016cv00135
Plaintiff:
Triple D Corporation and Triple D Corporation Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated doing business as Knox Auto Parts
Defendant:
Takata Corporation(PLR1), Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Rohit Prakash v. Altadis U.S.A., Inc., et al
as 12-3492
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROHIT PRAKASH
Defendant - Appellee:
ALTADIS U.S.A., INC., ALTADIS HOLDINGS U.S.A., INC., CUBAN CIGAR BRANDS NV and others
Jorge v. Toyoyta Motor North America, Inc. et al
as 2:2010cv00060
Plaintiff:
Anita Jorge
Defendant:
Toyoyta Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Manufacturing, California, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Prakash v. Altadis U.S.A., Inc. et al
as 5:2010cv00033
Plaintiff:
Rohit Prakash
Defendant:
Altadis U.S.A., Inc., Altadis Holdings U.S.A., Inc., Cuban Cigar Brands NV and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
