Cases 41 - 47 of 47
Griffin v. Eli Lilly and Company et al
as 2:2023cv04239
Defendant:
EVERNORTH HEALTH INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, NOVO NORDISK INC. and others
In Re:
INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION
Plaintiff:
Tim Griffin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION
as 2:2023md03080
In Re:
INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION
Defendant:
EVERNORTH HEALTH INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, NOVO NORDISK INC. and others
Not Classified By Court:
HON. JOSEPH A. DICKSON
Plaintiff:
THE STATE OF MONTANA, EX. REL., THE STATE OF KANSAS EX. REL., TIMOTHY GRIFFIN and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY et al
as 3:2023cv03916
Plaintiff:
CITY OF MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY and COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY
Defendant:
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, NOVO NORDISK INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
VALUE DRUG COMPANY v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY et al
as 3:2020cv05129
Defendant:
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY and others
Plaintiff:
VALUE DRUG COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964
v. ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. et al
as 2:2020cv03426
Defendant:
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al.
as 3:2020cv03426
Plaintiff:
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.
Defendant:
MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, CAREMARK LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964
RUSSELL M. HOLSTEIN, PH.D., LLC v. OPTUM, INC. et al
as 3:2015cv07646
Plaintiff:
RUSSELL M. HOLSTEIN, PH.D., LLC
Defendant:
OPTUM, INC., OPTUMRX, INC., OPTUMHEALTH BEHAVIORAL SOLUTIONS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
