In Re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a RICO claim in which a third party alleged that it was directly injured because it stocked Avandia in its formulary based on the defendant’s misrepresentations
• finding presence of intermediaries did not sever the causal link because the plaintiffs were the \primary and intended victims of the scheme to defraud and their injury was a foreseeable and natural consequence of the scheme.\
• “[A] plaintiff who complained of harm flowing merely from the misfortunes visited upon a third person by the defendant’s acts was generally said to stand at too remote a distance to recover.”
• “[A] plaintiff who complained of harm flowing merely from the misfortunes visited upon a third person by the defendant’s acts was generally said to stand at too remote a distance to recover.”
• plaintiffs pleaded direct injury sufficient to satisfy RICO’s standing requirement because the alleged “fraudulent scheme could have been successful only if plaintiffs paid for [the drug at issue], and this is the very injury that plaintiffs seek recovery for”
• plaintiffs pleaded direct injury sufficient to satisfy RICO’s standing requirement because the alleged “fraudulent scheme could have been successful only if plaintiffs paid for [the drug at issue], and this is the very injury that plaintiffs seek recovery for”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).