IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION 

THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) Case No. 2:18-cv-37

)

PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA ) Action Filed: December 13, 2017

INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, ) Action Served: December 18, 2017

INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; )

CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; )

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; )

ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN )

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN )

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN )

PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN )

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO )

PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; ALLERGAN PLC )

F/K/A ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC. F/K/A )

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; )

WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS )

LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. F/K/A WATSON )

PHARMA, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS )

INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; )

MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL )

HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN )

CORPORATION; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; )

RUSSELL PORTENOY; PERRY FINE; )

SCOTT FISHMAN; and LYNN WEBSTER, ) 

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC. AND 

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 1 of 31 PAGEID #: 1
2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, defendants Endo Health Solutions Inc. and 

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, “Endo”) hereby give notice of removal of this action, 

captioned The County of Jefferson v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., bearing case number 17CV00554, 

from the Court of Common Pleas for Jefferson County, Ohio, to the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Ohio. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Endo provides the following 

statement of the grounds for removal: 

BACKGROUND

1. On December 13, 2017, Plaintiff, the County of Jefferson, filed a Complaint 

(attached hereto, with process papers served upon Endo, as Exhibit 1) in the Court of Common 

Pleas for Jefferson County, Ohio, against the following defendants:

a. “Manufacturer Defendants” — Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health 

Solutions Inc.; Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; 

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen 

Pharmaceutica, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Allergan plc f/k/a Actavis plc; Actavis, 

Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; 

Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.; and Insys Therapeutics, Inc.

b. “Physician Defendants” — Russell Portenoy; Perry Fine; Scott Fishman; 

and Lynn Webster. 

c. “Distributor Defendants” — McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc. 

(“Cardinal”); AmerisourceBergen Corporation; and Miami-Luken, Inc. (“Miami-Luken”).

2. The Complaint contains allegations relating to conduct by the Manufacturer 

Defendants and Physician Defendants, on the one hand, and separate alleged conduct by the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 2 of 31 PAGEID #: 2
3

Distributor Defendants, on the other. 

3. The thrust of the Complaint is that the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician 

Defendants engaged in a marketing and promotional campaign based on misrepresentations about 

the risks of FDA-approved prescription opioid medications. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-51.) Plaintiff alleges 

that, as part of this campaign, the Manufacturer Defendants paid physicians and others to promote 

the Manufacturer Defendants’ opioid products. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff further alleges that the 

Physician Defendants participated in those promotional activities. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 99-102, 

201-207, 389-390.) According to Plaintiff, the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician 

Defendants’ alleged conduct has caused Plaintiff to incur “health care costs, criminal justice and 

victimization costs, social costs, and lost productivity costs.” (Id. ¶ 51.) All of the Manufacturer 

Defendants and Physician Defendants are citizens of states or foreign states other than Ohio.

4. Unlike the allegations against the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician 

Defendants, none of Plaintiff’s allegations against the Distributor Defendants relates to purported 

misrepresentations about opioid medications. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the Distributor 

Defendants “failed in their duty to take any action to prevent or reduce the distribution of

[opioids]” or to notice and report “suspicious or alarming orders of opioid pharmaceuticals . . . to 

the proper authorities and governing bodies . . . .” (Id. ¶¶ 711, 713; see also id. ¶¶ 717-724.) 

The Complaint further alleges that the Distributor Defendants failed to “prevent the flow of 

prescription opioids . . . into Jefferson County.” (Id. ¶ 724.) Two Distributor Defendants, 

Cardinal and Miami-Luken, are Ohio citizens. (Id. ¶¶ 81, 91.) The other Distributor Defendants 

are citizens of states other than Ohio. (Id. ¶¶ 74, 86.) 

5. The Complaint asserts ten causes of action against “all Defendants,” although each 

individual claim rests almost entirely on conduct involving the Manufacturer Defendants and 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 3 of 31 PAGEID #: 3
4

Physician Defendants only, on the one hand, or the Distributor Defendants only, on the other: 

(1) unfair consumer sales practices under chapter 1345 of the Ohio revised code; (2) deceptive 

trade practices under chapter 4165 of the Ohio revised code; (3) public nuisance and product 

liability; (4) fraud; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) negligence; (7) negligence per se; (8) negligent 

marketing; (9) racketeering under chapter 2923 of the Ohio revised code; and (10) injury through 

criminal acts under chapter 2307 of the Ohio revised code. (Id. ¶¶ 743-851, 878-900.)1 

6. Endo received the Complaint through service on December 18, 2017. Pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served on Endo is attached hereto 

as Exhibit 1. A copy of the state court docket and all documents filed in the state court action 

(other than the Complaint) is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

7. On December 5, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order 

creating a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) that would include this case, i.e., cases in which 

“cities, counties and states . . . allege that (1) manufacturers of prescription opioid medications 

overstated the benefits and downplayed the risks of the use of their opioids and aggressively

marketed (directly and through key opinion leaders) these drugs to physicians, and/or (2) 

distributors failed to monitor . . . and report suspicious orders of prescription opiates.” In re Nat’l 

Prescription Opiate Litig., MDL No. 2804, Doc. 328 (Dec. 5, 2017 Transfer Order) (attached as 

Exhibit 3). 

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 115, 1391, 1441(a), and 

1446(a) because the Court of Common Pleas for Jefferson County, Ohio, where the Complaint was 

filed, is a state court within the Southern District of Ohio. 

 

1

In pleading the causes of action, the Complaint jumps from paragraph 851 to 878, omitting 

paragraphs 852 through 877.

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 4 of 31 PAGEID #: 4
5

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because 

(1) there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and all properly joined defendants; 

(2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs; and (3) all other 

requirements for removal have been satisfied.

I. THERE IS COMPLETE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF 

AND ALL PROPERLY JOINED DEFENDANTS

10. There is complete diversity of citizenship here because Plaintiff is an Ohio citizen 

and all of the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician Defendants are citizens of states or foreign 

states other than Ohio, see Part I.A infra, and the citizenship of the Distributor Defendants (two of 

which are non-diverse) should be ignored for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, see Part I.B infra. 

This is because the Distributor Defendants are subject to severance under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 21 and the procedural misjoinder doctrine.2

A. Plaintiff Is Diverse from the Manufacturer and Physician Defendants

1. Plaintiff Is a Citizen of Ohio

11. The County of Jefferson is an Ohio citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 

See Moor v. Alameda Cty., 411 U.S. 693, 719-21 (1973) (holding that Alameda County is a 

California citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction); Brown v. Marshall Cty., Ky., 394 F.2d 

498, 500 (6th Cir. 1968) (holding that a county is a citizen of the State in which it is located).

2. None of the Manufacturer or Physician Defendants is a Citizen of Ohio

12. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is “a citizen of every State and 

foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its 

principal place of business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A partnership is a citizen of every

 

2 Though only two Distributor Defendants (Cardinal and Miami-Luken) are non-diverse, the 

Court should sever all of the Distributor Defendants because of the common factual allegations 

underlying the claims against those defendants.

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 5 of 31 PAGEID #: 5
6

state in which its partners are citizens. See Americold Realty Tr. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. 

Ct. 1012, 1015 (2016); Hooper v. Wolfe, 396 F.3d 744, 748 (6th Cir. 2005).

13. Applying these principles, none of the Manufacturer or Physician Defendants is a 

citizen of Ohio.

14. Defendant Endo Health Solutions Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 

Delaware with its principal place of business in Malvern, Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 67.) 

15. Defendant Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 

Delaware with its principal place of business in Malvern, Pennsylvania. (Id.) 

16. Defendant Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partnership organized under the laws of 

Delaware, none of whose partners are citizens of Ohio. (See id. ¶ 56 at p. 17.)3 Its partners are 

Purdue Pharma Inc., a citizen of New York and Connecticut, and Purdue Holdings L.P. Purdue 

Holdings L.P.’s partners are Purdue Pharma Inc., a citizen of New York and Connecticut; PLP 

Associates Holdings Inc., a citizen of New York and Connecticut; and PLP Associates Holdings 

L.P.; PLP Associates Holdings L.P.’s partners are PLP Associates Holdings Inc., a citizen of New 

York and Connecticut; and BR Holdings Associates L.P. BR Holdings Associates L.P.’s partners 

are BR Holdings Associates Inc., a citizen of New York and Connecticut; Beacon Company; and 

Rosebay Medical Company L.P.; Beacon Company’s partners are Stanhope Gate Corp., a citizen 

of the British Virgin Islands and Jersey, Channel Islands; and Heatheridge Trust Company

Limited, a citizen of Jersey, Channel Islands. Rosebay Medical Company L.P.’s partners are 

Rosebay Medical Company, Inc., a citizen of Delaware and Connecticut; R. Sackler, a citizen of 

 

3 The Complaint contains paragraph numbering errors. The paragraph immediately after 

paragraph 57 (starting on page 17 and ending on page 19) is incorrectly numbered as paragraph 54. 

As a result of this error, there are two sets of paragraphs with the numbers 54 through 57. To 

avoid confusion, whenever Endo cites to paragraphs impacted by these errors, it will cite to page 

numbers as well as paragraph numbers. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 6 of 31 PAGEID #: 6
7

Texas; and J. Sackler, a citizen of Connecticut.

17. Defendant Purdue Pharma Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 

Delaware with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. (Id.) 

18. Defendant The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. is a corporation organized under 

the laws of New York with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. 

19. Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a corporation organized under the 

laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in North Wales, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 56 at p. 

19.) 

20. Defendant Cephalon, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware 

with its principal place of business in Frazer, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 57 at p. 19.)

21. Defendant Johnson & Johnson is a corporation organized under the laws of New 

Jersey with its principal place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 63.)

22. Defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws 

of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Titusville, New Jersey. (Id.)

23. Defendant Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a corporation organized 

under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Titusville, New Jersey. (Id.)

24. Defendant Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 

Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Titusville, New Jersey. (Id.) 

25. Defendant Allergan plc is a public limited company incorporated in Ireland with its 

principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland. (Id. ¶ 70.)

26. Defendant Actavis, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is now known as 

Allergan Finance LLC, a Nevada limited liability company. Its sole member is Allergan W.C. 

Holding Inc. f/k/a Actavis W.C. Holding Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 7 of 31 PAGEID #: 7
8

business in Parsippany, New Jersey. (See id.)

27. Defendant Watson Laboratories, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal 

place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey.

28. Defendant Actavis LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal 

place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. (Id.) Actavis LLC’s sole member is Actavis US 

Holding LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware. Actavis US 

Holding LLC’s sole member is Watson Laboratories, Inc., a Nevada corporation with its principal 

place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. (See id.) 

29. Defendant Actavis Pharma, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., is a Delaware 

corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. (Id.)

30. Defendant Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 

Delaware with its principal place of business in Chandler, Arizona. (Id. ¶ 72.) 

31. Defendant Dr. Russell Portenoy is a citizen of New York. (Id. ¶ 99.)

32. Defendant Dr. Perry Fine is a citizen of Utah. (Id. ¶ 100.)

33. Defendant Dr. Scott Fishman is a citizen of California. (Id. ¶ 101.)

34. Defendant Dr. Lynn Webster is a citizen of Utah. (Id. ¶ 102.)

35. Accordingly, all of the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician Defendants are 

citizens of a state or foreign state other than Ohio.

B. The Citizenship of the Distributor Defendants Should Be Ignored

1. The Distributor Defendants Should Be Severed Under Rule 21

36. Even where the face of a complaint shows a lack of complete diversity, removal 

based on diversity jurisdiction is nonetheless proper if the claims against the non-diverse 

defendants are severable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Defendants are severable 

under Rule 21 if they are either unnecessary or dispensable under Rule 19, or if the claims against 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 8 of 31 PAGEID #: 8
9

them are sufficiently distinct from claims against other defendants under Rule 20. Here, the 

Distributor Defendants should be severed on both grounds, each of which preserves diversity 

jurisdiction as to the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician Defendants. 

37. Joseph v. Baxter International, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 868 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

(attached hereto as Exhibit 4), is particularly instructive. There, Louisiana plaintiffs brought a 

products liability action against the out-of-state manufacturer of the drug Heparin. Id. at 870. 

Before the case was removed, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add as defendants various 

healthcare provider companies, which were citizens of Louisiana and therefore non-diverse, 

alleging that they engaged in “negligent acts and omissions in the administration of Heparin.” Id. 

at 871. Despite the addition of these non-diverse healthcare provider defendants, the district court 

denied remand as to the manufacturer. Id. at 875.

38. Following Sixth Circuit precedent, the Baxter court explained that “it is appropriate 

to drop a nondiverse and dispensable party from litigation in order to achieve diversity.” Id. at 

872 (quoting Soberay Mach. & Equip. Co. v. MRF Ltd., 181 F.3d 759, 763 (6th Cir. 1999)). As 

the court explained, Rule 21 “permits a district court to retain diversity jurisdiction over a case by

dropping a nondiverse party if that party’s presence in the action is not required under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 19.” Id. (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. v. City of White House, 36 F.3d 540, 545 (6th 

Cir. 1994)); see also id. (“[U]nder Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [courts] can 

retain jurisdiction by severing claims against nondiverse dispensable defendants.”). Applying 

these principles, the Baxter court concluded that the healthcare-provider defendants were 

dispensable parties subject to severance and thus declined to remand the entire case. Id. at 

872-74. The court reasoned that the healthcare-provider defendants were “not necessary parties 

as the resolution of a claim against them would not necessarily resolve the [plaintiffs’] claim 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 9 of 31 PAGEID #: 9
10

against [the manufacturer]”; the medical malpractice claims against the healthcare providers 

“differ from the [plaintiffs’] products liability claim” against the manufacturer. Id. at 872. And, 

the court explained, the healthcare-provider defendants were dispensable because the plaintiffs 

“retain an adequate remedy against the Healthcare Defendants as they can proceed with their 

claims in state court.” Id. at 873. Given the separate questions raised by plaintiffs’ medical 

malpractice claims against the healthcare providers, the court found that it could “sever them from 

the claims against [the manufacturer], and in doing so, perfect diversity jurisdiction over [the 

manufacturer].” Id. at 874. 

39. Numerous other decisions have followed the same approach. See id. at 873-74

(citing Phillips v. Knoll Pharm. Co., No. 5:03-cv-08044 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 4, 2003)); Kelly v. 

Aultman Physician Ctr., No. 5:13CV0994, 2013 WL 2358583, at *3 (N.D. Ohio May 29, 2013); 

DeGidio v. Centocor, Inc., No. 3:09CV721, 2009 WL 1867676, at *3-4 (N.D. Ohio July 8, 2009); 

Lucas v. Springhill Hosps., Inc., No. 1:09HC60016, 2009 WL 1652155, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 11, 

2009); Williams v. Knoll Pharm. Co., No. 5:03-cv-08030 (N.D. Ohio July 11, 2003); Sullivan v. 

Calvert Mem’l Hosp., 117 F. Supp. 3d 702, 705-07 (D. Md. 2015); Mayfield v. London Women’s 

Care, PLLC, No. 15-19-DLB, 2015 WL 3440492, at *3-5 (E.D. Ky. May 28, 2015); McElroy v. 

Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:12-cv-297, 2012 WL 12871469, at *2-3 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 20, 

2012); Cooke-Bates v. Bayer Corp., No. 3:10-cv-261, 2010 WL 3984830, at *4 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 

2010); Jolly v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., No. 9:09-CV-00038 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2009)). 

40. Likewise, here, this Court should sever the Distributor Defendants under Rule 21 

and deny remand as to the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician Defendants, because the

Distributor Defendants are both unnecessary and dispensable parties under Rule 19. Alleged 

joint tortfeasors like the Distributor Defendants are unnecessary parties as a matter of settled law. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 10 of 31 PAGEID #: 10
11

E.g., Boggs v. Landmark 4 LLC, No. 1:12-cv-614, 2012 WL 3485288, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 

2012) (“[T]he Supreme Court has held that, as a matter of law, joint tortfeasors are not necessary

parties under Rule 19.” (citing Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5, 7-8 (1990)). 

41. Moreover, just like the claims against the manufacturer and the non-diverse 

healthcare-provider defendants in Baxter, Plaintiff’s claims and factual allegations against the 

Manufacturer Defendants and Physician Defendants are sufficiently distinct from those against the 

Distributor Defendants to merit severance. The claims against the Manufacturer Defendants and 

Physician Defendants involve alleged misrepresentations regarding the risks of opioid 

medications. (Compl. ¶¶ 6-18.) By contrast, Plaintiff’s claims against the Distributor 

Defendants focus exclusively on allegations that the Distributor Defendants negligently 

distributed opioid medications. (Id. ¶¶ 74-98, 701-736.) Severance is particularly appropriate 

because “the claims ‘involve different legal standards and different factual allegations.’” Kelly, 

2013 WL 2358583, at *3 (citing DeGidio, 2009 WL 1867676, at *3). 

42. Beyond Rule 19, the claims against the Distributor Defendants are also misjoined 

under Rule 20, which provides a distinct basis for severance. Rule 21 permits severance of claims 

against non-diverse defendants that do not “aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or 

series of transactions or occurrences” as the claims against other defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

20(a)(1)(A); see Loeffelbein v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, No. Civ.A. 

02-2435-CM, 2003 WL 21313957, at *5 (D. Kan. May 23, 2003) (“Rule 21 is a mechanism for 

correcting . . . the misjoinder . . . of parties or claims” which “arises when the claims and parties 

fail to satisfy any of the conditions of permissive joinder under Rule 20(a).” (citation omitted)). 

Courts have repeatedly severed claims against non-diverse defendants and denied remand as to 

diverse defendants where the claims against the non-diverse defendants were separate and distinct, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 11 of 31 PAGEID #: 11
12

and arose from different transactions or occurrences.4 Because of the distinct factual 

underpinnings of the claims against the diverse and non-diverse defendants here, these claims 

cannot properly be joined together. 

43. Severance is particularly appropriate in this case because it will allow the diverse 

parties to benefit from the significant efficiencies to be gained from participation in coordinated 

MDL proceedings in the Northern District of Ohio. See In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 

MDL No. 2804, Doc. 328 (Dec. 5, 2017 Transfer Order). Courts within this Circuit and other 

circuits have recognized the importance of these efficiencies in severing non-diverse defendants 

and denying remand as to diverse defendants. E.g., Baxter, 614 F. Supp. 2d at 873 (“[P]laintiffs 

will benefit from the MDL process: they will not bear the burden of having to engage on their own, 

and at their sole expense, in discovery vis-à-vis [the diverse manufacturer].”); Mayfield, 2015 WL 

3440492, at *5 (“[I]f the surviving federal claims are transferred to the Ethicon MDL, the prospect 

of dual litigation has undeniable upside.”); Sullivan, 117 F. Supp. 3d at 707 (“Severance is 

particularly appropriate in this case because it would allow for the transfer of [plaintiff’s] claims 

 

4

See, e.g., Loeffelbein, 2003 WL 21313957, at *6 (severing non-diverse defendant and denying 

remand as to diverse defendants; “[w]hile plaintiffs do not distinguish between each of the 

defendants in the individual counts of the petition, the counts clearly arise from two different sets 

of facts”); Sutton v. Davol, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 500, 505 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“Plaintiffs’ claims based on 

strict products liability against the removing Defendants are separate from Plaintiffs’ claims of 

medical malpractice against the [non-diverse] Defendants”); Greene v. Wyeth, 344 F. Supp. 2d 

674, 683-84 (D. Nev. 2004) (“[T]he only common attribute among the Plaintiffs’ claims against 

the [diverse manufacturer] and those against the non-diverse Defendants is that each Plaintiff 

ultimately ingested Fen-Phen due to the alleged actions of one or more of these Defendants. 

Individual circumstances, actions, and omissions were involved in each Plaintiff’s choice to ingest 

the medication, as well as each Defendant’s role in, and responsibility for, that decision.”); 

DirecTV, Inc. v. Beecher, 296 F. Supp. 2d 937, 945 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (severing misjoined claims 

under Rule 21 where plaintiff “allege[d] that many individuals have wronged it in the same way, 

but in separate transactions or occurrences”); Randleel v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 182 F.R.D. 542, 

543 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (severing misjoined claims where “the factual scenarios underlying each 

incident are different, the times are different, and the people involved are different” (footnote 

omitted)).

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 12 of 31 PAGEID #: 12
13

against the [diverse manufacturer] to Multi-District Litigation.”); Sutton, 251 F.R.D. at 505 

(“Plaintiff’s claims against the [non-diverse] Defendants are severed and remanded pursuant to 

Rule 21 . . . so as to preserve the removing Defendants’ right to removal in the remaining 

multidistrict action and preserve the interests of judicial expediency and justice so that all pre-trial 

discovery on the products liability case can be coordinated in a single forum.”). As one court 

explained in materially identical circumstances, “[t]he Court’s decision to sever . . . [the 

non-diverse healthcare provider] will not greatly prejudice [plaintiff], but failure to do so could 

subject [the diverse manufacturer defendant] to considerable prejudice. [Plaintiff] will be forced 

to pursue two separate suits, but it will not alone bear the administrative and financial burdens of 

pursuing its claims against [the manufacturer] in the MDL proceedings. For its part, [the 

manufacturer] could be exposed to numerous related suits if courts considering suits similar to this 

one refused to sever claims against [the manufacturer] from those against the providers that 

prescribed [the drug].” Cooke-Bates, 2010 WL 3984830, at *4 (internal citations omitted). 

44. Aramouni v. Cook Medical, No. 1:15-cv-1116, 2015 WL 5661040 (N.D. Ohio 

Sept. 24, 2015), is readily distinguishable. There, the court found severance unnecessary in part 

because all claims arose from “the same basic operative facts” and severance would not promote 

“judicial and economic efficiency” absent the ability to consolidate with other federal lawsuits. 

Id. at *3. This case is entirely different. As described above, Plaintiff’s claims against the 

Distributor Defendants involve different operative facts than the claims against the Manufacturer 

Defendants and Physician Defendants, and severance of the Distributor Defendants will promote 

judicial and economic efficiency because it will permit the diverse parties to benefit from the 

significant efficiencies of coordinated MDL proceedings before the Northern District of Ohio. 

45. That Plaintiff asserts its causes of action against “all Defendants” changes nothing. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 13 of 31 PAGEID #: 13
14

Severance is appropriate because the factual basis for Plaintiff’s claims against the Manufacturer 

Defendants and Physician Defendants (alleged misrepresentations) is separate and distinct from 

the factual basis for Plaintiff’s claims against the Distributor Defendants (alleged failure to prevent 

or reduce the distribution of opioid products or to report suspicious orders). See Loeffelbein, 2003 

WL 21313957, at *6 (“While plaintiffs do not distinguish between each of the defendants in the 

individual counts of the petition, the counts clearly arise from two different sets of facts.”); Nelson 

v. Aim Advisors, Inc., No. 01-cv-0282-MJR, 2002 WL 442189, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2002) 

(“Although Plaintiffs’ claims against all Defendants are pled under the same legal theory, it is only 

in this abstract sense that Plaintiffs’ claims share anything in common . . . [and] does not mean that 

there are common issues of law and fact sufficient to satisfy Rule 20(a).”). And, as in Baxter, if 

Plaintiff truly wants to pursue claims against the Distributor Defendants, Plaintiff has an “adequate 

remedy . . . in state court.” 614 F. Supp. 2d at 873. 

2. The Distributor Defendants Are Fraudulently Misjoined

46. The citizenship of the Distributor Defendants alternatively should be ignored 

because the claims against them are fraudulently misjoined in this action. “Fraudulent misjoinder 

occurs when a plaintiff attempts to defeat removal by misjoining the unrelated claims of 

non-diverse party plaintiffs against a defendant, or . . . by misjoining the unrelated claims of a 

plaintiff against non-diverse party defendants.” Baxter, 614 F. Supp. 2d at 874; see also Tapscott 

v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 1996), abrogated on another ground in 

Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000). As explained above, Plaintiff’s 

claims against the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician Defendants are separate and distinct 

from Plaintiff’s claims against the Distributor Defendants, including Cardinal and Miami-Luken. 

There is no plausible basis for their inclusion in this lawsuit other than to defeat diversity. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 14 of 31 PAGEID #: 14
15

47. Indeed, in opioid-related cases like this one, federal district courts recently relied 

on the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine to ignore the citizenship of non-diverse defendants and deny 

remand based on diversity jurisdiction. See Cty. Comm’n of McDowell Cty. v. McKesson Corp., 

263 F. Supp. 3d 639, 647 (S.D. W. Va. 2017) (attached hereto as Exhibit 5); City of Huntington v. 

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., Civ. A. No. 3:17-01362, 2017 WL 3317300, at *4-5 (S.D. W. 

Va. Aug. 3, 2017) (attached hereto as Exhibit 6). In McKesson Corp., the plaintiff filed suit in 

state court against diverse distributors of opioid products for allegedly “flood[ing] McDowell 

County with opioids well beyond what was necessary to address pain and other [legitimate] 

reasons,” and also against a non-diverse doctor for allegedly “provid[ing] written opioid 

prescriptions for patients, knowing that the drugs were likely to be abused, diverted or misused.” 

263 F. Supp. 3d at 642. The court found that these claims were fraudulently misjoined and 

accordingly denied remand because “plaintiff’s claims against the [distributors] and the claims 

against [the doctor]” lacked “common questions of law or fact” and were “separate and distinct.” 

Id. at 647. In AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, the court reached the same conclusion for 

substantially similar reasons. 2017 WL 3317300, at *5 (claims against diverse and non-diverse 

defendants were “separate and distinct”). 

48. To be sure, as the court in Baxter noted, the Sixth Circuit has not yet adopted the 

fraudulent misjoinder doctrine, and some decisions from the Northern District of Ohio have 

declined to apply the doctrine. Baxter, 614 F. Supp. 2d at 874; Geffen v. Gen. Elec. Co., 575 F. 

Supp. 2d 865, 871 (N.D. Ohio 2008); Rodriguez v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, No. 1:08 GD 50327, 

2008 WL 4683294, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2008). This Court, too, has declined to apply the 

doctrine. Cent. Ohio Gaming Ventures, LLC v. Goodman, No. 2:11-CV-223, 2011 WL 1981185, 

at *9 (S.D. Ohio May 20, 2011). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 15 of 31 PAGEID #: 15
16

49. Nevertheless, at least one other court within the Sixth Circuit has applied the 

doctrine. Asher v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., No. Civ.A. 04-CV-522, 2005 WL 1593941, at *7-8 

(E.D. Ky. June 30, 2005) (adopting fraudulent misjoinder doctrine and articulating a standard that 

requires no “reasonable basis for finding the Plaintiff’s claims were properly joined”). Even if the 

Court finds that the Distributor Defendants are not subject to severance under Rule 21, it should 

find the claims against them misjoined under the procedural misjoinder doctrine. 

50. In sum, because Plaintiff is an Ohio citizen, and because none of the properly 

joined defendants is an Ohio citizen, there is complete diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a).

II. THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $75,000

51. “[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the 

amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating 

Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). “[W]hen a defendant seeks federal-court 

adjudication, the defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not 

contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Id. at 553. In determining whether the 

amount in controversy is satisfied, the Court may consider compensatory and statutory damages, 

as well as punitive damages. Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res. Co., 266 F.3d 560, 572-73 (6th Cir. 

2001). 

52. Here, Plaintiff asserts that it has suffered “millions of dollars” of losses “[a]s a 

direct and foreseeable consequence of [Manufacturer] Defendants’ wrongful conduct.” (Compl. 

¶ 51.) Plaintiff seeks “[c]ompensatory damages in an amount sufficient to . . . completely

compensate Plaintiff for all damages” as well as treble damages and punitive damages. (Id. 

Prayer for Relief ¶¶ i-iii.) It is thus clear that the alleged amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 16 of 31 PAGEID #: 16
17

exclusive of interest and costs. 

III. ALL OTHER REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED

A. This Notice of Removal Is Timely

53. This Notice of Removal is timely filed. Endo received the Complaint through 

service on December 18, 2017. Because Endo filed the Notice of Removal on January 12, 2018, 

removal is timely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). 

B. All Properly Joined And Served Defendants Consent to Removal

54. For purposes of removal based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) 

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), all defendants who have been properly joined and served 

must consent to removal. 

55. The following properly joined and served Defendants consent to removal, as 

indicated by their signing below: Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; The Purdue 

Frederick Company, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; 

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Actavis, 

Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; 

Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.; Insys Therapeutics, Inc.; Dr. 

Russell Portenoy; Dr. Perry Fine; Dr. Scott Fishman; and Dr. Lynn Webster. See City of 

Cleveland v. Ameriquest Mort. Sec., Inc., 615 F.3d 496, 501 (6th Cir. 2010) (co-defendants may

consent to removal by filing a written consent).

56. The following properly joined Defendant has not been properly served, and thus its 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 17 of 31 PAGEID #: 17
18

consent to removal is not required: Allergan plc f/k/a Actavis plc.5 See id. Nevertheless, it 

consents to removal. 

57. The following properly served Defendants have not been properly joined, and thus 

their consent to removal is not required: McKesson Corporation; Cardinal; AmerisourceBergen 

Corporation; and Miami-Luken. Nevertheless, they consent to removal. 

58. By filing this Notice of Removal, neither Endo nor any other defendant waives any 

defense that may be available to them and reserves all such defenses. If any question arises as to 

the propriety of the removal to this Court, Endo and the remaining properly joined defendants 

request the opportunity to present a brief and oral argument in support of their position that this 

case has been properly removed.

 

5 Allergan plc expressly reserves all defenses related to personal jurisdiction and service of 

process.

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 18 of 31 PAGEID #: 18
19

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Endo hereby removes this action from the Court of Common Pleas, 

Jefferson County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

DATED: January 12, 2018 /s/ Carole S. Rendon

Carole S. Rendon (0070345)

Tera N. Coleman (0090544)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

Key Tower

127 Public Square, Suite 2000

Cleveland, OH 44114-1214

(216) 621-0200

crendon@bakerlaw.com

tcoleman@bakerlaw.com

Ingo W. Sprie, Jr.*

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP

250 West 55th Street

New York, NY 10019-9710

(212) 836-8000

Ingo.Sprie@apks.com

Sean Morris*

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP

777 S. Figueroa Street

44th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

(213) 243-4000

Sean.Morris@apks.com

Attorneys for Defendants

ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC. and ENDO 

PHARMACEUTICALS INC. 

* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac 

vice admission 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 19 of 31 PAGEID #: 19
20

WRITTEN CONSENT OF OTHER 

DEFENDANTS

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants 

PURDUE PHARMA L.P., PURDUE PHARMA 

INC., and THE PURDUE FREDERICK 

COMPANY, INC.:

/s/ Daniel J. Buckley

Daniel J. Buckley (3772)

VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR and PEASE LLP

301 East Fourth Street

Suite 3500, Great American Tower

Cincinnati, OH 45202

(513) 723-4002

djbuckley@vorys.com

Patrick J. Fitzgerald*

R. Ryan Stoll*

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & 

FLOM LLP

4 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

(212) 735-3000

patrick.fitzgerald@skadden.com

ryan.stoll@skadden.com

-and155 North Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 407-0700

* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac 

vice admission

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 20 of 31 PAGEID #: 20
21

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants 

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 

CEPHALON, INC., WATSON 

LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS LLC, and 

ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. F/K/A WATSON 

PHARMA, INC.

/s/ Wendy West Feinstein

Wendy West Feinstein (0064973)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Oxford Centre, 32nd Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401

(412) 560-7455

wendy.feinstein@morganlewis.com

Tinos Diamantatos*

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60601-5094

(312) 324-1145

tinos.diamantatos@morganlewis.com 

Steven A. Reed*

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

1701 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 963-5000

steven.reed@morganlewis.com

Brian M. Ercole

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300

Miami, FL 33131-2339

brian.ercole@morganlewis.com 

* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac 

vice admission

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 21 of 31 PAGEID #: 21
22

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants 

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN 

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN 

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN 

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and JANSSEN 

PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN 

PHARMACEUTICALS, Inc.

(Appearance by local counsel pending):

/s/ Charles C. Lifland*

Charles C. Lifland* 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

400 S. Hope Street

Los Angeles, CA 90071

(213) 430-6000

clifland@omm.com

* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac 

vice admission

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 22 of 31 PAGEID #: 22
23

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants

ALLERGAN PLC (F/K/A ACTAVIS PLC) AND 

ACTAVIS, INC. (N/K/A ALLERGAN 

FINANCE, LLC F/K/A WATSON 

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.) 

/s/ Andrew B. Daloia

John R. Mitchell (#0066759)

Stacey A. Greenwell (#0077909)

Andrea B. Daloia (#0074106)

THOMPSON HINE LLP

3900 Key Center

127 Public Square

Cleveland, OH 44114-1291

Telephone: 216-556-5500

Facsimile: 216-556-5800

John.Mitchell@ThompsonHine.com

Stacey.Greenwell@ThompsonHine.com

Andrea.Daloia@ThompsonHine.com

Donna Welch, P.C.* 

Martin L. Roth* 

Timothy Knapp* 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

300 North LaSalle

Chicago, Illinois 60654

(312) 862-2000

donna.welch@kirkland.com

martin.roth@kirkland.com

timothy.knapp@kirkland.com

Jennifer G. Levy, P.C.* 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 Fifteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 879-5000

jennifer.levy@kirkland.com

* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac

vice admission

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 23 of 31 PAGEID #: 23
24

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendant 

INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.:

/s/ Eric H. Zagrans

Eric H. Zagrans (0013108)

ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC

6100 Oak Tree Boulevard, Suite 200

Cleveland, Ohio 44131

(216) 771-1000 (telephone)

(866) 261-2008 (facsimile)

eric@zagrans.com (e-mail)

J. Matthew Donohue* (Trial Attorney) 

Joseph L. Franco*

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

2300 U.S. Bancorp Tower

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: 503.243.2300

Facsimile: 503.241.8014

matt.donohue@hklaw.com

joe.franco@hklaw.com

* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac 

vice admission

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendant 

RUSSELL PORTENOY:

/s/ Jordan D. Rauch

O. Judson Scheaf, III (0040285) 

Jordan D. Rauch (0093389) 

HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP

65 East State Street, Suite 1400

Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 233-5190

JScheaf@hahnlaw.com 

JRauch@hahnlaw.com 

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 24 of 31 PAGEID #: 24
25

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants 

PERRY FINE, M.D., SCOTT FISHMAN, M.D., 

and LYNN WEBSTER, M.D.:

/s/ Tyler Tarney

Greg Brunton (0061722) 

Tyler Tarney (0089082)

Daniel Hyzak (0091298)

GORDON & REES LLP

41 South High Street, Suite 2495

Columbus, Ohio 43215

T: (614) 340-5558; F: (614) 360-2130

gbrunton@grsm.com

ttarney@grsm.com

dhyzak@grsm.com

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendant 

MCKESSON CORPORATION:

/s/ Vincent I. Holzhall

Vincent I. Holzhall (0074901)

STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC

41 South High Street, Suite 2200

Columbus, OH 43215

Telephone: (614) 221-5100

Facsimile: (614) 221-0952

vince.holzhall@steptoe-johnson.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 25 of 31 PAGEID #: 25
26

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendant 

CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.:

/s/ James B. Hadden

James B. Hadden (0059315)

Joseph F. Murray (0063373)

Brian K. Murphy (0070654)

MURRAY, MURPHY, MOUL & BASIL

1114 Dublin Road

Columbus, OH 43215

614-488-0400

hadden@mmmb.com 

murray@mmmb.com

murphy@mmmb.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 26 of 31 PAGEID #: 26
27

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendant 

AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION6:

/s/ Erin E. Rhinehart

Erin E. Rhinehart (0078298)

D. Jeffrey Ireland (0010443)

Christopher C. Hollon (0086480)

FARUKI IRELAND COX 

RHINEHART & DUSING PLL

110 North Main Street, Suite 1600

Dayton, OH 45402

Telephone: (937) 227-3700

Telecopier: (937) 227-3717

erhinehart@ficlaw.com

djireland@ficlaw.com

chollon@ficlaw.com

Robert A. Nicholas

Shannon E. McClure

REED SMITH LLP

1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 851-8100

rnicholas@reedsmith.com

smcclure@reedsmith.com

Alvin L. Emch

JACKSON KELLY PLLC

500 Lee Street, East, Suite 1600

P.O. Box 553

Charleston, WV 25322

(304) 340-1000

aemch@jacksonkelly.com

 

6 By consenting to this Notice of Removal, Defendant AmerisourceBergen Corporation does not 

concede that it is a proper party to this litigation, and it is not.

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 27 of 31 PAGEID #: 27
28

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendant 

MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.:

/s/ Thomas J. Hurney 

Thomas J. Hurney (WVSB #1833)

Laurie K. Miller (WVSB #8826)

JACKSON KELLY PLLC

500 Lee Street East

Suite 1600

Charleston, WV 25322

(304) 340-1000

thurney@jacksonkelly.com 

lmiller@jacksonkelly.com 

Clay K. Keller (OH #0072927)

JACKSON KELLY PLLC

50 South Main Street, Suite 201

Akron, Ohio 44308

Tel: (330) 252-9060

Fax: (330) 252-9078 

ckkeller@jacksonkelly.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 28 of 31 PAGEID #: 28
29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing is being served upon the 

following by regular United States mail, postage prepaid:

Frank Gallucci

PLEVIN, & GALLUCCI COMPANY, L.P.A.

55 Public Square Suite 2222

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Paul J. Napoli

Jodseph L. Ciaccio

Salvatore C. Badala

NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC

400 Broadhollow Road – Suite 350

Melville, New York 11747

Leo M. Spellacy, Jr.

THRASHER DISMORE & DOLAN LPA

1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 412

Cleveland, OH 44114

Scott Elliot Smith

SCOTT ELLIOT SMITH

5003 Horizons Dr. Ste. 200

Columbus, OH 43220

Counsel for Plaintiff

Daniel J. Buckley

VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR and PEASE LLP

301 East Fourth Street

Suite 3500, Great American Tower

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Patrick J. Fitzgerald

R. Ryan Stoll

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & 

FLOM LLP

4 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

-and155 North Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

Counsel for Defendants Purdue Pharma L.P., 

Purdue Pharma Inc., and The Purdue Frederick 

Company, Inc.

Wendy West Feinstein

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Oxford Centre, 32nd Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401

Tinos Diamantatos

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

77 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60601-5094

Steven A. Reed

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

1701 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Brian M. Ercole

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300

Counsel for Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, 

Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., 

Actavis LLC, and Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson 

Pharma, Inc.

Charles C. Lifland

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

400 S. Hope Street

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Counsel for Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Janssen 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Janssen Pharmaceutica, 

Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 29 of 31 PAGEID #: 29
30

John R. Mitchell

Stacey A. Greenwell 

Andrea B. Daloia 

THOMPSON HINE LLP

3900 Key Center

127 Public Square

Cleveland, OH 44114-1291

Donna Welch, P.C.

Martin L. Roth

Timothy Knapp

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

300 North LaSalle

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Jennifer G. Levy, P.C.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 Fifteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Counsel for Defendants Allergan plc f/k/a Actavis 

plc, and Actavis, Inc. n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC 

f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Eric H. Zagrans

ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC

6100 Oak Tree Boulevard, Suite 200

Cleveland, Ohio 44131

J. Matthew Donohue 

Joseph L. Franco

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

2300 U.S. Bancorp Tower

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

Counsel for Defendant Insys Therapeutics, Inc.

O. Judson Scheaf, III

Jordan D. Rauch 

HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP

65 East State Street, Suite 1400

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Counsel for Defendant Russell Portenoy

Greg Brunton 

Tyler Tarney

Daniel Hyzak

GORDON & REES LLP

41 South High Street, Suite 2495

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Counsel for Defendants Perry Fine, M.D., Scott 

Fishman, M.D., and Lynn Webster, M.D

Vincent I. Holzhall

STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC

41 South High Street, Suite 2200

Columbus, OH 43215

Counsel for Defendant McKesson Corporation

James B. Hadden

Joseph F. Murray

Brian K. Murphy 

MURRAY, MURPHY, MOUL & BASIL

1114 Dublin Road

Columbus, OH 43215

Counsel for Defendant Cardinal Health, Inc.

Mark W. Bernlohr

Sandra K. Zerrusen

Aaron E. McQueen

Andrew N. Schock

JACKSON KELLY PLLC

50 South Main Street, Suite 201

Akron, OH 44308

Robert A. Nicholas

Shannon E. McClure

REED SMITH LLP

1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Alvin L. Emch

JACKSON KELLY PLLC

500 Lee Street, East, Suite 1600

P.O. Box 553

Charleston, WV 25322

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 30 of 31 PAGEID #: 30
31

Counsel for Defendant AmerisourceBergen 

Corporation

Thomas J. Hurney

Laurie K. Miller

JACKSON KELLY PLLC

500 Lee Street East

Suite 1600

Charleston, WV 25322

Clay K. Keller

Jackson Kelly PLLC

50 South Main Street, Suite 201

Akron, Ohio 44308

Counsel for Defendant Miami-Luken, Inc.

Dated: January 12, 2018

/s/ Carole S. Rendon

Attorney for Defendants Endo Health Solutions 

Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Case: 2:18-cv-00037-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 31 of 31 PAGEID #: 31