Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
February 27, 2019, Decided; February 27, 2019, Filed
13 Civ. 3702 (CM)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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.)
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)
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