City of Lorain v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al

Filing 1

Notice of Removal from Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, case number 17 CV 192705 with jury demand, Filing fee paid $ 400, receipt number 0647-8271689.. Filed by Endo Health Solutions Inc. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit 1 State Court Documents, #3 Exhibit 2 Miscellaneous Case Documents, #4 Exhibit 3 Case Law, #5 Exhibit 4 Case Law) (Coleman, Tera) Modified text on 8/4/2017 (P,WL).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

THE CITY OF LORAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
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.; 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.; MCKESSON CORPORATION;
CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
RUSSELL PORTENOY; PERRY FINE;
SCOTT FISHMAN; and LYNN WEBSTER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-1639
Action Filed: June 29, 2017
Action Served: July 10, 2017

DEFENDANTS ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC. AND
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
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 City of Lorain v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., bearing civil action number 17CV192705,
from the Court of Common Pleas for Lorain County, Ohio, to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Ohio. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Endo provides the following
statement of the grounds for removal:
BACKGROUND
1.

On June 29, 2017, Plaintiff, the City of Lorain, filed a Complaint (attached hereto,

with process papers served upon Endo, as Exhibit 1) in the Court of Common Pleas for Lorain
County, Ohio, against the following manufacturers and distributors of FDA-approved opioid
medications, as well as physicians who allegedly promoted the use of opioid products:
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.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; and Actavis
Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.;
b.

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

and Lynn Webster; and
c.

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

(“Cardinal”); and AmerisourceBergen Corporation.
2.

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

Defendants engaged in a campaign of misrepresentations about the risks of FDA-approved opioid
medications. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-44.) Plaintiff alleges that, as part of this campaign, the Manufacturer
Defendants paid physicians and others to promote the Manufacturer Defendants’ opioid products.
(Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff further alleges that the Physician Defendants participated in those promotional

2

activities. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 122-125, 224-230, 412-413.) Plaintiff asserts that 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.
¶ 44.) All of the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician Defendants are citizens of states other
than Ohio.
3.

Unlike the allegations against the Manufacturer Defendants and Physician

Defendants, none of Plaintiff’s allegations against the Distributor Defendants relate to purported
misrepresentations about opioid medications. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the Distributor
Defendants “played an integral role in the chain of opioids being distributed throughout the City of
Lorain” and “failed in their duty to take any action to prevent or reduce the distribution of these
drugs” or to notice and report “suspicious or alarming orders of opioid pharmaceuticals.” (Id.
¶¶ 89, 94, 98.)
4.

The Complaint asserts five causes of action against “all Defendants” (although the

majority of the alleged conduct underlying all of those claims involves only the Manufacturer
Defendants and the Physician Defendants): (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) nuisance and product liability; (4) fraud; and (5) unjust enrichment. (Id. ¶¶ 697-734.)
In addition, the Complaint asserts a negligence claim solely against the Distributor Defendants.
(Id. ¶¶ 735-749.)
5.

Endo received service of the Summons and Complaint on July 10, 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 (Complaint and service papers) and Exhibit 2 (orders).

3

VENUE AND JURISDICTION
6.

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 Lorain County, Ohio, where the Complaint was
filed, is a state court within the Northern District of Ohio.
7.

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
8.

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 other than
Ohio, see Part I.A infra, and the citizenship of the Distributor Defendants (one of which is
non-diverse) should be ignored for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, see Part I.B
infra. This is because the Distributor Defendants are dispensable parties subject to severance
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are also fraudulently misjoined.
A.

Plaintiff Is Diverse from the Manufacturer and Physician Defendants
1. Plaintiff Is a Citizen of Ohio

9.

The City of Lorain is an Ohio citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See

Moor v. Alameda Cty., 411 U.S. 693, 717 (1973) (“[A] political subdivision of a State, unless it is
simply ‘the arm or alter ego of the State,’ is a citizen of the State for diversity purposes.”) (citation
omitted); Saginaw Hous. Comm’n v. Bannum, Inc., 576 F.3d 620, 624 (6th Cir. 2009) (city and
school district are citizens of the state in which they are situated); Herold v. ASII, Inc., No.

4

1:11-CV-1690, 2012 WL 243303, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 23, 2012) (City of Cleveland is a citizen
of Ohio).
2. None of the Manufacturer Defendants or Physician Defendants Are Citizens
of Ohio
10.

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
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).
11.

Applying these principles, none of the Manufacturer Defendants or Physician

Defendants are citizens of Ohio.
12.

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

Delaware with its principal place of business in Malvern, Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 65.)
13.

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

Delaware with its principal place of business in Malvern, Pennsylvania. (Id.)
14.

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

Delaware, none of whose partners are residents of Ohio. (See id. ¶ 50.)
15.

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

Delaware with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. (Id.)
16.

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

the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. (Id.)
17.

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. ¶ 54.)

5

18.

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

with its principal place of business in Frazer, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 55.)
19.

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. ¶ 61.)
20.

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

of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Titusville, New Jersey. (Id.)
21.

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.)
22.

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

Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Titusville, New Jersey. (Id.)
23.

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

principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland. (Id. ¶ 68.)
24.

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

Allergan Finance LLC, a Nevada limited company with its principal place of business in
Parsippany, New Jersey. (See id.)
25.

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
Holdco LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware. Actavis US
Holdco LLC’s sole member is Watson Laboratories, Inc., a Nevada corporation with its principal
place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. (See id.)
26.

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

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

6

27.

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

corporation with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. (Id.)
28.

Defendant Dr. Russell Portenoy is a citizen of New York. (Id. ¶ 122.)

29.

Defendant Dr. Perry Fine is a citizen of Utah. (Id. ¶ 123.)

30.

Defendant Dr. Scott Fishman is a citizen of California. (Id. ¶ 124.)

31.

Defendant Dr. Lynn Webster is a citizen of Utah. (Id. ¶ 125.)

32.

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.

33.

The Distributor Defendants Are Dispensable Parties Subject to
Severance

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 would otherwise be severable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 21. This
Court’s decision in Joseph v. Baxter International, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 868 (N.D. Ohio 2009)
(attached hereto as Exhibit 3), is instructive. There, the plaintiffs, citizens of Louisiana, brought
a products liability action against Baxter, the manufacturer of the drug Heparin and a citizen of
Delaware and Illinois. 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, that allegedly 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.
34.

Following Sixth Circuit precedent, the court explained that “it is appropriate to

drop a nondiverse and dispensable party from litigation in order to achieve diversity.” Id. at 872
7

(quoting Soberay Mach. & Equip. Co. v. MRF Ltd., 181 F.3d 759, 763 (6th Cir. 1999)); 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.”); id. (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”) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. v.
City of White House, 36 F.3d 540, 545 (6th Cir. 1994)). Applying that principle, 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 against Baxter”; 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’ negligence claims against the healthcare providers, the
court further 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.
35.

The Baxter court cited numerous other decisions that followed the same approach

to retain diversity jurisdiction. See id. at 873-74 (citing Phillips v. Knoll Pharm. Co., No.
03-8044 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 4, 2003); Williams v. Knoll Pharm. Co., No. 03-8030 (N.D. Ohio July
11, 2003); Lucas v. Springhill Hosps., Inc., No. 1:09HC60016, 2009 WL 1652155, at *2 (N.D.
Ohio June 11, 2009); Jolly v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., No. 9:09-cv-00038 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16,
2009)). While severance in such instances is not mandatory, see Aramouni v. Cook Med., No.

8

1:15 CV 1116, 2015 WL 5661040, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2015), severance is particularly
appropriate in cases where “the claims ‘involve different legal standards and different factual
allegations.’” Kelly v. Aultman Physician Ctr., No. 5:13CV0994, 2013 WL 2358583, at *3 (N.D.
Ohio May 29, 2013) (citing DeGidio v. Centocor, Inc., No. 3:09CV721, 2009 WL 1867676, at *2
(N.D. Ohio July 8, 2009)).
36.

Likewise, here, the Distributor Defendants should be severed as dispensable parties

and any remand motion denied. 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, whereas the claims against the Distributor Defendants allege negligence in the
distribution of the medications. (Compare Compl. ¶¶ 5–17 (allegations against Manufacturer
Defendants and Physician Defendants), with id. ¶¶ 87–121 (allegations against Distributor
Defendants.)) And, as in Baxter, if Plaintiff truly wants to pursue claims against the Distributor
Defendants—that is, if Cardinal was not added solely in an attempt to defeat diversity
jurisdiction—Plaintiff has an “adequate remedy . . . in state court.” Baxter, 614 F. Supp. 2d at
872.
2.
37.

The Distributor Defendants Are Also Fraudulently Misjoined

Beyond the ability to retain diversity jurisdiction through severance, the citizenship

of the Distributor Defendants 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

9

. . . by misjoining the unrelated claims of a plaintiff against non-diverse party defendants.” Id. at
874 (quoting 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
completely separate and distinct from Plaintiff’s claims against the Distributor Defendants,
including Cardinal. There is no plausible basis for their inclusion in this lawsuit other than to
defeat diversity.
38.

Indeed, in an opioid-related case like this one, a federal district court recently

applied the fraudulent misjoinder doctrine to deny a motion to remand the action to state court.
See Cty. Comm’n of McDowell Cty. v. McKesson Corp., No. 1:17-00946, 2017 WL 2843614, at *5
(S.D. W. Va. July 3, 2017) (attached hereto as Exhibit 4). There, 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.” Id. at *1. 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 *5; see also id. at *4 (agreeing
that “the claims against [the doctor] arise out of different transactions, involve different evidence,
and rest on different legal theories than the claims against the [distributor defendants]”).
39.

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

fraudulent misjoinder doctrine, and certain judges in 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,

10

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).
40.

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

doctrine. Asher v. Minn. Mining and Mfg. Co., No. 04-CV-522, 2005 WL 1593941, at *7 (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”). Given the
divergent approaches—and for preservation purposes—if the Court finds that the Distributor
Defendants are not dispensable parties subject to severance, it should find the claims against them
misjoined.
41.

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

joined defendants are Ohio citizens, there is complete diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a).
II.

THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $75,000
42.

“[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).
43.

Here, Plaintiff asserts that it has been forced to “expend exorbitant amounts

money,” (Compl. at ¶ 3), and “has incurred, and continues to incur, costs related to opioid

11

addiction and abuse, including, but not limited to, health care costs, criminal justice and
victimization costs, social costs, and lost productivity costs,” (Id. ¶¶ 44, 671), in order to address
the “direct and foreseeable consequences of [Manufacturer] Defendants’ wrongful conduct,” (Id.
¶ 671.). 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.
III.

ALL OTHER REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED
A.

This Notice of Removal Is Timely

44.

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

service on July 10, 2017. The last day to file the Notice of Removal is August 9, 2017.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Because Endo filed the Notice of Removal on August 4, 2017, removal
is timely.
B.

All Properly Joined And Served Defendants Consent to Removal

45.

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.
46.

The following properly served and joined defendants consent to removal, as

indicated by their signing below: Defendants 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.;
Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.; Dr.
Russell Portenoy; Dr. Perry Fine; Dr. Scott Fishman; and Dr. Lynn Webster. See City of

12

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).
47.

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

their consent to removal is not required: Allergan plc f/k/a Actavis plc; and Actavis, Inc. f/k/a
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. See id.
48.

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

defense that may be available to them and reserve 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.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Endo hereby removes this action from the Court of Common Pleas, Lorain
County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
DATED: August 4, 2017

/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
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Ingo W. Sprie, Jr.*
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019-9710
[phone]
[e-mail]
Sean Morris*
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
777 S. Figueroa Street
44th Floor
13

Los Angeles, CA 90017
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC. and ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac
vice admission

WRITTEN CONSENT OF OTHER
PROPERLY JOINED DEFENDANTS
Consent to removal on behalf of 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
[phone]
[e-mail]
Patrick J. Fitzgerald*
R. Ryan Stoll*
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM LLP
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
-and155 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
[phone]
* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac
vice admission

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and
14

CEPHALON, INC.
(Appearance by local counsel pending):
/s/ Tinos Diamantatos
Tinos Diamantatos*
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-5094
[phone]
[e-mail]
* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac
vice admission
J. Gordon Cooney, Jr.*
Steven A. Reed*
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac
vice admission
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
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
* denotes national counsel who will seek pro hac
vice admission

15

Consent to removal on behalf of WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS LLC; and
ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. F/K/A WATSON
PHARMA, INC.
(Appearance by local counsel pending):
/s/ James W. Matthews
James W. Matthews*
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
111 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02199
[phone]
[e-mail]
* 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
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Consent to removal on behalf of Defendants
PERRY FINE, SCOTT FISHMAN, and LYNN
WEBSTER:
/s/ Gregory D. Brunton
Gregory D. Brunton (61722)
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
41 South High Street, Suite 240
Columbus, OH 43215
[phone]
[e-mail]

16

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:

John R. Climaco
David M. Cuppage
Margaret M. Metzinger
CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, & GAROFOLI, C.O., L.P.A.
55 Public Square, Suite 1950
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Paul J. Napoli
Joseph L. Ciaccio
Salvatore C. Badala
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
400 Broadhollow Road - Suite 350
Melville, New York 11747
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Vincent I. Holzhall
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
41 South High St, Ste 2200
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Attorney for Defendant McKesson Corporation
Joseph F Murray
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Attorney for Defendant Cardinal Health, Inc.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation
1300 East Ninth St
Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Dated: August 4, 2017

/s/ Tera N. Coleman
Attorney for Defendants
17