Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

United States v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

February 27, 2019, Decided; February 27, 2019, Filed

13 Civ. 3702 (CM)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

McMahon, C.J.:

This qui tam suit arises out of Teva's promotional speaker program. Former pharmaceutical sales representatives of Teva Neuroscience, Inc., allege that the speaker program was a conduit through which prescribers were bribed with speaker fees, expensive meals, and alcohol in exchange for prescribing two Teva drugs that treat multiple sclerosis (MS) and Parkinson's disease. Relators allege that this amounts to a violation of the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)—(B), through the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), as well as to violations of the False Claim Act's analogues in twenty-seven states, Washington, D.C., and two cities.

This case is similar to United States ex rel. Bilotta v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 11-cv-71 (S.D.N.Y.) (Bilotta), currently pending in this district before Judge Paul Gardephe. Although the United States (the "Government") chose to intervene in that case, it chose not to do so here. See United States ex rel. Arnstein v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 13-cv-3702, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22554, 2016 WL 750720, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2016) (Teva I) [*5] . The Government has, however, filed two Statements of Interest. (Dkt. Nos. 138-1, 158.)

On a previous motion to dismiss, this Court severed Relators' federal False Claims Act claim (Count I) from the pendent state and municipal claims (Counts II through XXXIII), and denied without prejudice Defendants' motion to dismiss those claims. Teva I, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22554, 2016 WL 750720 at *1.

Discovery has concluded, and Defendants now move for summary judgment on Count I. (Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Their Mot. for Summ. J. ("Defs. Br."), Dkt. No. 129 at 1.) Defendants also ask that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state and municipal law claims. (Id. at 32.)

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35148 *; 2019 WL 1245656

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; the States of CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OKLAHOMA, RHODE ISLAND, TENNESSE, TEXAS, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, and WISCONSIN; the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, the CITY OF CHICAGO, and the CITY OF NEW YORK; ex rel., CHARLES ARNSTEIN AND HOSSAM SENOUSY, Plaintiffs and Relators, -against- TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., and TEVA SALES AND MARKETING, INC., Defendants.

Subsequent History: Reconsideration denied by United States v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61771 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 19, 2019)

Prior History: United States ex rel. Arnstein v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22554 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2016)

CORE TERMS

programs, compliance, prescriptions, violations, prescribing, summary judgment, attendees, kickback, genuine issue of material fact, presentations, sales representative, patient, attendance, cases, Reply, marketing, policies, provider, referral, pharmaceutical company, condition of payment, relevant period, false claim, causation, volume, drugs, federal health, certification, tracked, sales