Cases 11 - 20 of 178
In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation
as 1:2014cv10150
In Re:
Opana ER Antitrust Litigation
Plaintiff:
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Value Drug Company, Kim Mahaffay and others
Defendant:
Impax Laboratories, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2019cv05822
Defendant:
Lupin Ltd., Bausch Health Companies Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. and others
Petitioner:
Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., Rite Aid Corporation, Hy-Vee, Inc. and others
Not Classified By Court:
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Cardinal Health, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Waters v. Meijer, Inc.
as 1:2022cv01157
Plaintiff:
William Waters
Defendant:
Meijer, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
Associated Grocers of the South et al v. Cargill, Inc. et al
as 0:2022cv02450
Defendant:
Cargill Meat Solution, Cargill Inc, Cargill Protein and others
Plaintiff:
Associated Grocers of the South, Meijer, Meijer Distribution and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
In Re: Ranbaxy Generic Drug Application Antitrust Litigation
as 1:2019md02878
In Re:
Ranbaxy Generic Drug Application Antitrust Litigation
Plaintiff:
Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Cesar Castillo, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Ranbaxy, Inc. and others
Consolidated Plaintiff:
United Food and Commercial Workers Health and Welfare Fund of Northern Pennsylvania and Louisiana Health Services and Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana
Respondent:
Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.
Interested Party:
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P.
Not Classified By Court:
Winifred Weitsen
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
In Re: Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
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)
Meijer, Inc., et al v. Bausch Health Companies Inc., et al
as 22-16249
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MEIJER, INC., MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC. and DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS PLAINTIFFS
Appellant:
GLENN WAYNE MITCHELL
Defendant / Appellee:
BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and others
Clermont County Board Of County Commissioners v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2017op45033
Defendant:
McKesson Corporation, Purdue Pharma L.P., Mallinckrodt LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Clermont County Board of County Commissioners
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
City Of Cincinnati v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2017op45041
Defendant:
McKesson Corporation, Purdue Pharma L.P., Mallinckrodt LLC and others
Plaintiff:
City of Cincinnati
Interested Party:
United States Department of Justice
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
IN RE: COPAXONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
as 2:2022cv01232
Plaintiff:
FWK Holdings, LLC, HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a/ KINNEY DRUGS, INC., MEIJER, INC. and others
Defendant:
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC. and others
Consolidated Plaintiff:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, LABOR-MANAGEMENT HEALTHCARE FUND and NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS COUNCIL HEALTH AND HOSPITAL FUND
Interested Party:
KING COUNTY and CITY OF TACOMA
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
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.
