Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 30
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Schering-Plough Corp., et al
as 11-2264
Plaintiff - Appellee: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Defendant - Appellant: SCHERING PLOUGH CORP, SCHERING CORPORATION and WARRICK PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION
Defendant: MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC., BARR LABORATORIES, INC., DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and others
Third Party Defendant: CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.
Interested Party: SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA and others
PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC. v. WYETH, INC. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2011cv05479
Defendant: WYETH LLC, WYETH, INC., WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and others
Not Yet Classified: HEB GROCERY COMPANY LP, RITE AID CORPORATION, PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 30 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND and others
Not Classified By Court: FAITH HOCHBERG
In Re: EFFEXOR XR ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Special Master: JONATHAN J. LERNER
Interested Party: IBEW -- NECA Local 505 Health & Welfare Plan, MC -- UA Local 119 Health & Welfare Plan, CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED and others
Plaintiff: Individual Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC.
Petitioner: TIMMY P. THIEN
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company
as 11-1178
Plaintiff - Appellant: KAREN L. BARTLETT
Plaintiff: GREGORY S. BARTLETT
Defendant - Appellee: MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC.
Defendant: UNITED RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC., URL Pharma Inc and BROOKS PHARMACY
Abbott Laboratories v. USDCOAK
as 10-71786
: In re: ABBOTT LABORATORIES
Petitioner: ABBOTT LABORATORIES
Respondent: USDC, OAKLAND
Real Party In Interest: MEIJER, INC., MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. and others
IN RE: Androgel Antitrust Litigation (No. II)
as 1:2009md02084
Plaintiff: George Steven Legrand, Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc., Maxi Drug, Inc. doing business as Brooks Pharmacy and others
Counter Defendant: Meijer Inc and Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc
In Re: Androgel Antitrust Litigation (No. II)
Defendant: Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc, Perrigo Company, Par Pharmaceuticals Inc and others
Respondent: King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., Miami-Luken, Inc., Prescription Supply, Inc. and others
Counter Claimant: Paddock Laboratories Inc
Petitioner: AmerisourceBergen Corp., McKesson Corp., Besins Healthcare, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Jagiello v. Foisy et al
as 3:2009cv30128
Plaintiff: Michelle L. Jagiello
Defendant: Dwane J. Foisy, Mark J. Lenihan, Diane Caccamo and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Bartlett et al v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2008cv00358
Defendant: Brooks Pharmacy, United Research Laboratories, Inc. and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.
Plaintiff: Gregory S. Bartlett and Karen L. Bartlett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Brown v. C.B. Fleet Holding Company, Incorporated et al
as 1:2007cv12254
Plaintiff: Geraldine Brown
Defendant: C.B. Fleet Holding Company, Incorporated, C.B. Fleet Company, Inc. and Rite Aid Corporation f/k/a Brooks Pharmacy, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Brooks Pharmacy, Inc. et al v. Card Systems U.S.A., Incorporated
as 4:2007cv02119
Plaintiff: Brooks Pharmacy, Inc., Brooks Pharmacy, Inc., Name Rite LLC and others
Defendant: Card Systems U.S.A., Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Trademark
KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC vs. CEPHALON, INC., ET AL We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2006cv01797
Plaintiff: AMERICAN SALES CO., INC., BURLINGTON DRUG COMPANY, INC., CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION and others
Defendant: BARR LABORATORIES, INC., BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., CEPHALON, INC. and others
Petitioner: TADEKA PHARMACEUTICAL NORTH AMERICA, INC.
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.


Why Is My Information Online?