Legal Opinion
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided April 3, 2001No. 99-md-1278; MDL 1278PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART STATE LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
EDMUNDS, District Judge.
ORDER NO. 25
State Law Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of Cardizem CD and its generic bioequi-valents. This Court has decided to use Plaintiffs’ Michigan action as an exemplar. Thus, the focus here will be on indirect purchasers in Michigan who are seeking: (1) equitable relief in the nature of disgorgement of Defendants’ unjust enrichment; (2) treble damages, jointly and severally, for Defendants’ violations of §§ 445.7721 and 445.773 2 of the…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. Grinnell Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- In re Cardizem CD Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
- In Re K-Dur Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2004
- In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2004
- In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2005
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.