Regardless, even assuming Method A or B matched the system in Masters, applying those systems to the defendants here, none of whom used them, is inconsistent with the analysis in Masters itself.

... review, Mr. Rafalski did not find sufficient evidence to dispel the suspicion of orders “that were or should have been flagged.” Id. In other words, Mr. Rafalski did not explicitly testify that he found defendants’ due diligence nonexistent, ...

Not only do distributors have no ability to stop pills on a prescription-by-prescription basis and none of the expertise with which to determine whether prescriptions are good or bad, they also have none of the coercive powers of ...

Plaintiff, Cabell County Commission and Defendant Amneal (including Amneal Plaintiff, Cabell County Commission and Defendant Amneal (including Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and/or Impax Laboratories, LLC, and as defined in Section II.L of the Amneal LLC, and/or Impax Laboratories, LLC, and as defined in Section II.L of the Amneal Pharmaceutical Settlement Agreement dated May 25, 2023), by and through their respective Pharmaceutical Settlement Agreement dated May 25, 2023), by and through their respective counsel, herein inform the Court that all claims between Cabell County Commission and Amneal counsel, herein inform the Court that all claims between Cabell County Commission and Amneal in the above captioned civil action, Cabell County Commission v. AmerisourceBergen Drug in the above captioned civil action, Cabell County Commission v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01665, have been amicably resolved in good faith and Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01665, have been amicably resolved in good faith and settled, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), request that Amneal be dismissed settled, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), request that Amneal be dismissed with prejudice.

Therefore, Cabell County Commission and Amneal, hereby stipulate to the with prejudice.

Therefore, Cabell County Commission and Amneal, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of all claims against Amneal WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs dismissal of all claims against Amneal WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

WHEREFORE, upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Amneal be WHEREFORE, upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Amneal be dismissed from the above captioned civil action with prejudice.

dismissed from the above captioned civil action with prejudice.

None of the parties filed an objection.

The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), is appropriate.

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order.

If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the Northern District of Ohio with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded.

In accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Defendant Cardinal Health respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of certain adjudicative facts in consideration of its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by the Cabell County Commission (the “County”).

McGraw v. Cardinal Health, Inc., No. 12-C-140 (Cir. Ct. Boone Cnty., W. Va.), together with other state and federal court filings in the same and similar matters.

“Moreover, judicial records may sometimes be properly noticed to show the acts of the parties or other actors in the litigation; e.g., that a complaint was filed, that return of service was made, or that stipulations were entered into.” Id. (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Wahid, No. 1:14-cr-214, 2018 WL 2717287, at *5 n.68 (N.D. Ohio, June 6, 2018).

Settlement Agreement and Release dated January 9, 2017 (attached as Ex. 4); Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, West Virginia ex rel.

Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Remand and for Costs, West Virginia ex rel.

Plaintiffs next argue that it is unfair to them to wait any longer to commence discovery, apparently assuming the pending motions will be denied in their entirety.

Plaintiffs argue that they are wholly ready now to distinguish and prove the inapplicability of H. D. Smith’s lead authority, Stevens v. MTR Gaming Group, Inc., 237 W. Va. 531, 788 S.E.2d 59 (2016).

This discussion is important to the Court’s pending deliberations as Chapter 30, articles 5 and 1, provide additional statutory authority for the conclusion that enforcement of the CSA is vested exclusively in the West Virginia Board of Pharmacy and that no implied private cause of action can be read into it.

Moreover, H. D. Smith is the only party discussing the Legislature’s more recent activities, such as the 2017 enactment of the Ryan Brown Addiction and Recovery Fund.

Plaintiffs do not point to any harm that this would cause them, it would facilitate and inform the Court’s deliberations on the currently pending motions, and it would prevent the likelihood of undesirable piecemeal appeals.

At a minimum, summary judgment should be entered for all negligence claims prior to two years before the date of filing suit by each County, and for all nuisance claims prior to one year before the date of filing suit by each County.

First, the res judicata doctrine bars these cases, for that doctrine precludes the re- litigation of (i) the same or similar claims (ii) by a party in privity with the State (iii) where there has been a final adjudication on the merits of the prior claims.

Here, the Plaintiff Counties— political subdivisions of the State—assert the very same claims made by the State in its 2012 lawsuit,1 which ended with an order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.

The Counties were on notice of their claims against Cardinal Health no later than June 2012, when the Attorney General sued the company, but they waited five years before bringing this action.

The accompanying memorandum is further supported by the exhibits attached to Cardinal Health’s Motion Requesting Judicial Notice in Further Support of Cardinal Health 110, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment as to All Claims.