Cases 1 - 5 of 5
Gursheel Dhillon, et al v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al
as 15-2792
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GURSHEEL S. DHILLON, on behalf of the United States of America and all Health Related Plans that purchased Lidoderm and cash payers
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MAX H. WEATHERSBY, JR., ex rel. On behalf of the states of CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, LA, MD, MI, MN, MT, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK, RI, TN, TX, VA, WI, and the DC. and MK LITIGATION PARTNERSHIP 2011 LLP, ex rel. On behalf of the states of CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, LA, MD, MI, MN, MT, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK, RI, TN, TX, VA, WI, and the DC.
Intervenor-Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee:
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, PEGGY RYAN, ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC and others
Gursheel Dhillon, et al v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al
as 14-3377
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GURSHEEL S. DHILLON, On behalf of the United States of America and all Health Related Plans that purchased Lidoderm and cash payers
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MAX H. WEATHERSBY, JR., ex rel., On behalf of the States of CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, LA, MD, MI, MN, MT, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK, RI, TN, TX, VA, WI and the D.C., MK LITIGATION PARTNERSHIP 2011 LLP, ex. rel. On behalf of the states of CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, LA, MD, MI, MN, MT, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK, RI, TN, TX, VA, WI, and the D.C. and PEGGY RYAN, United States of America ex rel. Peggy Ryan, States of: FL, NY, MA, CA, VA, DE, IL, NV, GA, HI, IN, MT, NH, NJ, NM, OK, RI, TEN, TX
Intervenor-Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee:
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC, ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS INC and others
DHILLON VS ENDO PHARMACETICALS
as 2:2011cv07767
Plaintiff:
GURSHEEL S. DHILLON
Defendant:
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS
Intervenor_plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. ยง 3729
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.
