Other Statutes Cases filed in the Sixth Circuit Courts
Cases 61 - 70 of 1,578
Muskingum County Board of County Commissioners v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2018op45137
Defendant: McKesson Corporation, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P. and others
Plaintiff: Muskingum County Board of County Commissioners
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Wayne County Board of County Commissioners v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2018op45150
Defendant: McKesson Corporation, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P. and others
Plaintiff: Wayne County Board of County Commissioners
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Williams County Board of County Commissioners v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2018op45257
Defendant: McKesson Corporation, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P. and others
Plaintiff: Williams County Board of County Commissioners
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Columbiana County Board of County Commissioners v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2018op45289
Plaintiff: Columbiana County Board of County Commissioners
Defendant: AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., McKesson Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Auglaize County Board of County Commissioners v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2018op45570
Plaintiff: Auglaize County Board of County Commissioners
Defendant: McKesson Corporation, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Knox County Board of County Commissioners v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2018op45665
Defendant: McKesson Corporation, Purdue Pharma L.P., Mallinckrodt LLC and others
Plaintiff: Knox County Board of County Commissioners
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Garrison Southfield Park LLC v. Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2017cv00783
Cross Defendant: Kuusakoski US LLC, Potomac Ecycle, LLC, Eworks Electronics Services, Inc. and others
Defendant: Federal Prison Industries, Inc., Brent Benham, David Cauchi and others
Counter Claimant: Kuusakoski Glass Recycling LLC and Micro Center Inc.
Counter Defendant: Garrison Southfield Park LLC
Cross Claimant: Rochester Computer Recycling & Recovery, LLC and Dynamic Lifestyle Innovations Inc.
Not Classified By Court: Kathryn R Gugle
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 9607 Real Property Tort to Land
Olymbec USA LLC v. Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2019cv01041
Counter Defendant: Olymbec USA LLC, Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc., Closed Loop Glass Solutions, LLC and others
Defendant: Dynamic Lifestyles Innovations Inc., Vintage Tech, LLC, Robert A. Erie and others
Cross Defendant: E-World Recyclers, LLC, Geep Holdings Inc., IMS Electronics Recycling, Inc. and others
Cross Claimant: American Retroworks, Inc. and LG Electronics USA Inc
Counter Claimant: Geep USA Inc., Complete Recycling Solutions, LLC, RMG Enterprise, LLC and others
Not Classified By Court: Kathryn R Gugle
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1365 Environmental Matters
Oakland County Employees' Retirement System et al v. Sotera Health Company et al
as 1:2023cv00143
Plaintiff: Oakland County Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association
Defendant: Sotera Health Company, Michael Petras, Jr., Scott Leffler and others
City of Lake Charles v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al
as 1:2019op45449
Defendant: Beverly Sackler, Allergan PLC f/k/a Actavis PLC f/k/a Allergan, Inc., Richard S. Sackler and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 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.


Why Is My Information Online?