Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 1 of 307
`
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`TOWN OF MILLIS, MA,
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG
`CORPORATION, CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.,
`McKESSON CORPORATION, TEVA
`PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
`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., NORAMCO, INC.,
`ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., ENDO
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PAR
`PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., PAR
`PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.,
`ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC,
`ALLERGAN FINANCE LLC, f/k/a ACTAVIS
`INC, f/k/a WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS,
`INC, WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.,
`ACTAVIS LLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a
`WATSON PHARMA, INC., CVS HEALTH
`CORPORATION, Individually and d/b/a CVS
`PHARMACY, INC., H. D. SMITH
`WHOLESALE DRUG CO., RITE AID
`CORPORATION, RITE AID DAYVILLE
`DISTRIBUTION CENTER, PJC DISTRIBUTOR
`COMPANY, INC., WALMART INC.,
`WALMART STORES EAST, LP, Individually and
`d/b/a WAL-MART WAREHOUSE #46,
`WALGREEN BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.,
`Individually and d/b/a WALGREEN EASTERN
`CO. INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No:___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Complaint for Public Nuisance;
`Violations of Racketeer Influenced and
`Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 18
`U.S.C.§ 1961 et seq.; Violations of 18
`U.S.C. §1962 et seq.; Negligence and
`Negligent Misrepresentation;
`Civil Conspiracy; and Fraud and Fraudulent
`Misrepresentation; Violations of Massachusetts
`General Laws, Chapter 93A, Sections 2 and 11;
`and Aiding and Abetting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND AND
`ENDORSED HEREON
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 2 of 307
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................................... 7
`PARTIES ....................................................................................................................................... 8
`I.
`PLAINTIFF........................................................................................................................ 8
`II.
`DEFENDANTS ................................................................................................................. 9
`A. Marketing Defendants. .................................................................................................. 9
`1. Actavis Entities………………………………………...……………………10
`2. Cephalon Entities ........................................................................................... 11
`3. Janssen Entities .............................................................................................. 12
`4. Endo Entities .................................................................................................. 15
`B. Distributor Defendants ................................................................................................ 17
`1. Cardinal Health, Inc. ...................................................................................... 17
`2. McKesson Corporation .................................................................................. 18
`3. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation .......................................................... 18
`4. CVS Entities................................................................................................... 19
`5. Rite-Aid Entities ............................................................................................ 19
`6. Walgreens Entities ......................................................................................... 20
`7. Walmart Entities ............................................................................................ 21
`8. H. D. Smith. ................................................................................................... 21
`C. Agency and Authority ................................................................................................. 22
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................................... 22
`I.
`Facts Common to All Claims ........................................................................................... 22
`A.
`Opioids and Their Effects .................................................................................... 22
`B.
`The Resurgence of Opioid Use in the United States............................................ 26
`1. The Sackler Family Integrated Advertising and Medicine ............................ 26
`2. Non-Defendant Co-Conspirator Purdue Developed and Aggressively
`Promoted OxyContin ............................................................................... 28
`3. The Marketing Defendants Leapt at the Opioid Opportunity ........................ 33
`Defendants’ Conduct Created an Abatable Public Nuisance ............................... 36
`
`C.
`
`
`1545959.13
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 3 of 307
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`D.
`
`ii.
`iii.
`iv.
`v.
`
`ii.
`iii.
`
`The Marketing Defendants’ Multi-Pronged Scheme to Change Prescriber
`Habits and Public Perception and Increase Demand for Opioids ........................ 36
`1. The Marketing Defendants Promoted Multiple Falsehoods About
`Opioids ..................................................................................................... 38
`a. Falsehood #1: The risk of addiction from chronic opioid therapy is
`low…………………………………………………………………..…. 39
`i.
`Non-defendant co-conspirator Purdue’s misrepresentations
`regarding addiction risk ................................................... 40
`Endo’s misrepresentations regarding addiction risk ........ 46
`Janssen’s misrepresentations regarding addiction risk. ... 48
`Actavis’s misrepresentations regarding addiction risk. ... 50
`Non-defendant co-conspirator Mallinckrodt’s
`misrepresentations regarding addiction risk .................... 51
`Falsehood #2: To the extent there is a risk of addiction, it can be
`b.
`easily identified and managed .................................................................. 53
`c.
`Falsehood #3: Signs of addictive behavior are “pseudoaddiction,”
`requiring more opioids ............................................................................. 56
`d.
`Falsehood #4: Opioid withdrawal can be avoided by tapering .... 59
`e.
`Falsehood #5: Opioid doses can be increased without limit or
`greater risks .............................................................................................. 60
`f.
`Falsehood #6: Long-term opioid use improves functioning ........ 62
`g.
`Falsehood #7: Alternative forms of pain relief pose greater risks
`than opioids .............................................................................................. 68
`h.
`Falsehood #8: OxyContin provides twelve hours of pain relief .. 71
`i.
`Falsehood #9: New formulations of certain opioids successfully
`deter abuse ............................................................................................... 76
`i.
`Non-defendant co-conspirator Purdue’s deceptive
`marketing of reformulated OxyContin and Hysingla ER 77
`Endo’s deceptive marketing of reformulated Opana ER . 80
`Other Marketing Defendants’ misrepresentations
`regarding abuse deterrence .............................................. 86
`2. The Marketing Defendants Disseminated Their Misleading Messages
`About Opioids Through Multiple Channels ............................................ 87
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 4 of 307
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Marketing Defendants Directed Front Groups to Deceptively
`a.
`Promote Opioid Use ................................................................................. 88
`i.
`American Pain Foundation .............................................. 90
`ii.
`American Academy of Pain Medicine and the American
`Pain Society ..................................................................... 93
`FSMB ............................................................................... 96
`iii.
`The Alliance for Patient Access ....................................... 98
`iv.
`The U.S. Pain Foundation (“USPF”) ............................. 102
`v.
`American Geriatrics Society (“AGS”) ........................... 102
`vi.
`The Marketing Defendants Paid Key Opinion Leaders to
`b.
`Deceptively Promote Opioid Use .......................................................... 104
`i.
`Dr. Russell Portenoy ...................................................... 106
`ii.
`Dr. Lynn Webster........................................................... 109
`iii.
`Dr. Perry Fine................................................................. 110
`iv.
`Dr. Scott Fishman .......................................................... 113
`The Marketing Defendants Disseminated Their Misrepresentations
`c.
`Through Continuing Medical Education Programs ............................... 115
`d.
`The Marketing Defendants Used “Branded” Advertising to
`Promote Their Products to Doctors and Consumers .............................. 118
`e.
`The Marketing Defendants Used “Unbranded” Advertising To
`Promote Opioid Use For Chronic Pain Without FDA Review .............. 119
`f.
`The Marketing Defendants Funded, Edited And Distributed
`Publications That Supported Their Misrepresentations ......................... 120
`g.
`The Marketing Defendants Used Detailing To Directly
`Disseminate Their Misrepresentations To Prescribers .......................... 122
`h.
`Marketing Defendants Used Speakers’ Bureaus and Programs to
`Spread Their Deceptive Messages ......................................................... 125
`3. The Marketing Defendants Targeted Vulnerable Populations..................... 126
`4. Non-defendant Co-conspirator Insys Employed Fraudulent, Illegal,
`and Misleading Marketing Schemes to Promote Subsys ....................... 128
`5. The Marketing Defendants’ Scheme Succeeded, Creating a Public
`Health Epidemic..................................................................................... 133
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 5 of 307
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Marketing Defendants dramatically expanded opioid prescribing
`a.
`and use ................................................................................................... 133
`b.
`Marketing Defendants’ Dramatically Expanded Opioid Prescribing
`and Use................................................................................................... 136
`Defendants Throughout the Supply Chain Deliberately Disregarded Their
`Duties to Maintain Effective Controls and to Identify, Report, and Take
`Steps to Halt Suspicious Orders ......................................................................... 137
`1. All Defendants Have a Duty to Report Suspicious Orders and Not to
`Ship Those Orders Unless Due Diligence Disproves Their
`Suspicions .............................................................................................. 138
`2. Defendants Were Aware of and Have Acknowledged Their
`Obligations to Prevent Diversion and to Report and Take Steps to
`Halt Suspicious Orders .......................................................................... 144
`3. Defendants Worked Together to Inflate the Quotas of Opioids They
`Could Distribute ..................................................................................... 147
`4. Defendants Kept Careful Track of Prescribing Data and Knew About
`Suspicious Orders and Prescribers ......................................................... 155
`5. Defendants Failed to Report Suspicious Orders or Otherwise Act to
`Prevent Diversion................................................................................... 163
`6. Defendants Delayed a Response to the Opioid Crisis by Pretending to
`Cooperate with Law Enforcement ......................................................... 166
`7. The National Retail Pharmacies Were on Notice of and Contributed to
`Illegal Diversion of Prescription Opioids .............................................. 171
`a.
`The National Retail Pharmacies Have a Duty to Prevent Diversion
`
`…………………………………………………………………172
`b.
`Multiple Enforcement Actions against the National Retail
`Pharmacies Confirms their Compliance Failures .................................. 175
`i. CVS………………………………………...…………….176
`
`ii. Walgreens .............................................................................. 179
`
`iii. Rite Aid................................................................................. 181
`
`The Opioids the Defendants Sold Migrated into Other Jurisdictions ................ 183
`Massachussets Specific Facts ............................................................................ 188
`1. Defendants Breached Their Duties in Massachusetts .................................. 188
`2. The Devastating Effects of the Opioid Crisis in Massachusetts .................. 194
`
`-iv-
`
`E.
`
`F.
`G.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 6 of 307
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`H.
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`The Opioid Crisis Has Particularly Harmed Plaintiff’s Town. .......................... 197
`The Defendants Conspired To Engage In The Wrongful Conduct
`Complained Of Herein and Intended To Benefit Both Independently and
`Jointly From Their Conspiracy .......................................................................... 198
`1. Conspiracy Among Marketing Defendants ................................................. 198
`2. Conspiracy Among All Defendants ............................................................. 201
`Statutes Of Limitations Are Tolled and Defendants Are Estopped From
`Asserting Statutes Of Limitations As Defenses ................................................. 202
`1. Continuing Conduct. .................................................................................... 202
`2. Equitable Estoppel and Fraudulent Concealment ........................................ 203
`Facts Pertaining to Punitive Damages ............................................................... 206
`1. The Marketing Defendants Persisted in Their Fraudulent Scheme
`Despite Repeated Admonitions, Warnings, and Even Prosecutions ..... 207
`a. FDA Warnings to Janssen Failed to Deter Janssen’s Misleading
`Promotion of Duragesic ......................................................................... 207
`b. Governmental Action, Including Large Monetary Fines, Failed to Stop
`Cephalon from Falsely Marketing Actiq for Off-Label Uses ................ 208
`c. FDA Warnings Did Not Prevent Cephalon from Continuing False and
`Off-Label Marketing of Fentora ............................................................ 208
`d. A Guilty Plea and a Large Fine Did Not Deter Non-Defendant Co-
`Conspirator Purdue from Continuing Its Fraudulent Marketing of
`OxyContin .............................................................................................. 209
`2. Repeated Admonishments and Fines Did Not Stop Defendants from
`Ignoring Their Obligations to Control the Supply Chain and
`Prevent Diversion................................................................................... 210
`Facts Pertaining To Claims Under Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
`(“RICO”) Act ................................................................................................................. 217
`A.
`The Opioid Marketing Enterprise ...................................................................... 217
`1. The Common Purpose and Scheme of the Opioid Marketing Enterprise .... 217
`2. The Conduct of the Opioid Marketing Enterprise violated Civil RICO ...... 221
`3. The RICO Marketing Defendants Controlled and Paid Front Groups
`and KOLs to Promote and Maximize Opioid Use ................................. 225
`4. Pattern of Racketeering Activity .................................................................. 226
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 7 of 307
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`The Opioid Supply Chain Enterprise ................................................................. 229
`B.
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 240
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – Opioid Marketing
`Enterprise Against Defendants Cephalon, Janssen, Endo, and (the “RICO Marketing
`Defendants”.................................................................................................................... 240
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – Opioid Supply
`Chain Enterprise Against Defendants Cephalon, Endo, Mallinckrodt, Actavis,
`McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen (the “RICO Supply Chain
`Defendants”.................................................................................................................... 251
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Common Law Public Nuisance (Against All Defendants)...... 259
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligence (Against All Defendants) .................................. 267
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Common Law Fraud (Against the Marketing Defendants) ...... 282
`SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unjust Enrichment (Against All Defendants) ......................... 288
`SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Civil Conspiracy (Against All Defendants) ...................... 289
`EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Deceptive Trade Practices ………………………………....292
`NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Aiding and Abetting…………………………………………297
`PUNITIVE DAMAGES ............................................................................................................ 298
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................ 298
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 8 of 307
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Town of Millis, MA brings this action to prevent future harm and to redress
`
`past wrongs, against Defendants: Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par
`
`Pharmaceutical, Inc. , Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson &
`
`Johnson, Noramco,
`
`Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc. n/k/a
`
`Janssen
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva
`
`Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Allergan PLC f/k/a
`
`Actavis PLC, Allergan Finance, LLC, f/k/a Actavis, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson
`
`Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc, Cardinal Health, Inc.,
`
`McKesson Corporation, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, CVS Health Corporation, Individually
`
`and d/b/a CVS Indiana, LLC, RiteAid Corporation, Rite Aid Dayville Distrution Center, PJC
`
`Distributor Company, Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. a/k/a Walgreen Co., Individually and d/b/a
`
`Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc., Walmart Inc., Individually and d/b/a Wal-Mart Warehouse #46, and H.D.
`
`Smith Wholesale Drug Co., and all of their operating divisions and subsidiaries as identified below.
`
`Plaintiff asserts two categories of claims: (1) claims against the pharmaceutical manufacturers of
`
`prescription opioid drugs that engaged in a massive false marketing campaign to drastically expand
`
`the market for such drugs and their own market share, and (2) claims against manufacturers and
`
`distributors in the supply chain that reaped enormous financial rewards by refusing to monitor and
`
`restrict the improper distribution of those drugs.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2.
`
`This case arises from the worst man-made epidemic in modern medical history—
`
`the misuse, abuse, diversion and over-prescription of opioids.1
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, as used herein, the term “opioid” refers to the entire family of
`opiate drugs including natural, synthetic and semi-synthetic opiates.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 9 of 307
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`By now, most Americans have been affected, either directly or indirectly, by the
`
`opioid disaster. But few realize that this crisis arose from the opioid manufacturers’ deliberately
`
`deceptive marketing strategy to expand opioid use, together with the distributors’ equally
`
`deliberate efforts to evade restrictions on opioid distribution. Manufacturers and distributors alike
`
`acted without regard for the lives that would be trammeled in pursuit of profit.
`
`4.
`
`Since the push to expand prescription opioid use began in the late 1990s, the death
`
`toll has steadily climbed, with no sign of slowing. The number of opioid overdoses in the United
`
`States rose from 8,000 in 1999 to over 20,000 in 2009, and over 33,000 in 2015.2 In the twelve
`
`months that ended in September 2017, opioid overdoses claimed 45,000 lives.
`
`5.
`
`From 1999 through 2016, overdoses killed more than 350,000 Americans.3 Over
`
`200,000 of them, more than were killed in the Vietnam War, died from opioids prescribed by
`
`doctors to treat pain.4 These opioids include brand-name prescription medications such as
`
`OxyContin, Opana ER, Vicodin, Subsys, and Duragesic, as well as generics like oxycodone,
`
`hydrocodone, and fentanyl.
`
`6.
`
`Most of the overdoses from non-prescription opioids are also directly related to
`
`prescription pills. Many opioid users, having become addicted to but no longer able to obtain
`
`prescription opioids, have turned to heroin. According to the American Society of Addiction
`
`Medicine, 80% of people who initiated heroin use in the past decade started with prescription
`
`opioids—which, at the molecular level and in their effect, closely resemble heroin. In fact, people
`
`
`2 Overdose Death Rates, NIH Nat’l Inst. on Drug Abuse , https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-
`topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates (revised Sept. 2017).
`3 Understanding the Epidemic, Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention,
`https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html (last updated Aug. 30, 2017).
`4 Prescription Opioid Overdose Data, Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention,
`https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/overdose.html (last updated Aug. 1, 2017).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 10 of 307
`
`
`
`who are addicted to prescription opioids are 40 times more likely to become addicted to heroin,
`
`and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) identified addiction to prescription
`
`opioids as the strongest risk factor for heroin addiction.
`
`7.
`
`As a result, in part, of the proliferation of opioid pharmaceuticals between the late
`
`1990s and 2015, the life expectancy for Americans decreased for the first time in recorded
`
`history. Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death for Americans under 50.
`
`8.
`
`In the words of Robert Anderson, who oversees death statistics at the Centers for
`
`Disease Control and Prevention, “I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like this. Certainly not
`
`in modern times.” On October 27, 2017, the President declared the opioid epidemic a public
`
`health emergency.
`
`9.
`
`This suit takes aim at the two primary causes of the opioid crisis: (a) a marketing
`
`scheme involving the false and deceptive marketing of prescription opioids, which was designed
`
`to dramatically increase the demand for and sale of opioids and opioid prescriptions; and (b) a
`
`supply chain scheme, pursuant to which the various entities in the supply chain failed to design
`
`and operate systems to identify suspicious orders of prescription opioids, maintain effective
`
`controls against diversion, and halt suspicious orders when they were identified, thereby
`
`contributing to the oversupply of such drugs and fueling an illegal secondary market.
`
`10.
`
`On the demand side, the crisis was precipitated by the defendants who manufacture,
`
`sell, and market prescription opioids (“Marketing Defendants”). Through a massive marketing
`
`campaign premised on false and incomplete information, the Marketing Defendants engineered a
`
`dramatic shift in how and when opioids are prescribed by the medical community and used by
`
`patients. The Marketing Defendants relentlessly and methodically, but untruthfully, asserted that
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 11 of 307
`
`
`
`the risk of addiction was low when opioids were used to treat chronic pain, and overstated the
`
`benefits and trivialized the risk of the long-term use of opioids.
`
`11.
`
`The Marketing Defendants’ goal was simple: to dramatically increase sales by
`
`convincing doctors to prescribe opioids not only for the kind of severe pain associated with cancer
`
`or short-term post-operative pain, but also for common chronic pains, such as back pain and
`
`arthritis. They did this even though they knew that opioids were addictive and subject to abuse,
`
`and that their other claims regarding the risks, benefits, and superiority of opioids for long-term
`
`use were untrue and unfounded.
`
`12.
`
`The Marketing Defendants’ push to increase opioid sales worked. Through their
`
`publications and websites, endless stream of sales representatives, “education” programs, and
`
`other means, Marketing Defendants dramatically increased their sales of prescription opioids and
`
`reaped billions of dollars of profit as a result. Since 1999, the amount of prescription opioids sold
`
`in the U.S. nearly quadrupled. In 2016, 289 million prescriptions for opioids were filled in the
`
`U.S.—enough to medicate every adult in America around the clock for a month.
`
`13. Meanwhile, the Defendants made blockbuster profits. In 2012 alone, opioids
`
`generated $8 billion in revenue for drug companies. By 2015, sales of opioids grew to
`
`approximately $9.6 billion.
`
`14.
`
`On the supply side, the crisis was fueled and sustained by those involved in the
`
`supply chain of opioids, including manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies (together,
`
`“Defendants”), who failed to maintain effective controls over the distribution of prescription
`
`opioids, and who instead have actively sought to evade such controls. Defendants have contributed
`
`substantially to the opioid crisis by selling and distributing far greater quantities of prescription
`
`opioids than they know could be necessary for legitimate medical uses, while failing to report, and
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 12 of 307
`
`
`
`to take steps to halt suspicious orders when they were identified, thereby exacerbating the
`
`oversupply of such drugs and fueling an illegal secondary market.
`
`15.
`
`From the day they made the pills to the day those pills were consumed in our town,
`
`and on to the present day, these manufacturers have had control over the information regarding
`
`addiction they chose to spread and emphasize as part of their massive marketing campaign. By
`
`providing misleading information to doctors about addiction being rare and opioids being safe
`
`even in high doses, then pressuring doctors into prescribing their products by arguing, among other
`
`things, that no one should be in pain, the Marketing Defendants created a population of addicted
`
`patients who sought opioids at never-before-seen rates. The scheme worked, and through it the
`
`Marketing Defendants caused their profits to soar as more and more people became dependent on
`
`opioids. Today, as many as 1 in 4 patients who receive prescription opioids long-term for chronic
`
`pain in a primary care setting struggles with addiction. And as of 2017, overdose death rates
`
`involving prescription opioids were five times higher than they were in 1999.
`
`16.
`
`As millions became addicted to opioids, “pill mills,” often styled as “pain clinics,”
`
`sprouted nationwide and rogue prescribers stepped in to supply prescriptions for non-medical use.
`
`These pill mills, typically under the auspices of licensed medical professionals, issue high volumes
`
`of opioid prescriptions under the guise of medical treatment. Prescription opioid pill mills and
`
`rogue prescribers cannot channel opioids for illicit use without at least the tacit support and willful
`
`blindness of the Defendants, if not their knowing support.
`
`17.
`
`As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conduct, cities and counties across
`
`the nation, including Plaintiff, are now swept up in what the CDC has called a “public health
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 13 of 307
`
`
`
`epidemic” and what the U.S. Surgeon General has deemed an “urgent health crisis.”5 The
`
`increased volume of opioid prescribing correlates directly to skyrocketing addiction, overdose, and
`
`death; black markets for diverted prescription opioids; and a concomitant rise in heroin and
`
`fentanyl abuse by individuals who could no longer legally acquire – or simply could not afford –
`
`prescription opioids.
`
`18.
`
`Thus, rather than compassionately helping patients in pain, this explosion in opioid
`
`use – and Defendants’ profits – has come at the expense of patients and the Plaintiff and has caused
`
`ongoing harm and damages to the Plaintiff. As the CDC director concluded in 2014: “We know
`
`of no other medication routinely used for a nonfatal condition that kills patients so frequently.”6
`
`19.
`
`Defendants’ conduct in promoting opioid use has had severe and far-reaching
`
`public health, social services, and criminal justice consequences, including the fueling of addiction
`
`and overdose, and death from illicit drugs such as heroin. The costs are borne by Plaintiff and
`
`other governmental entities. These necessary and costly responses to the opioid crisis include the
`
`handling of emergency responses to overdoses, providing addiction treatment, handling opioid-
`
`related investigations, arrests, adjudications, and incarcerations, treating opioid-addicted newborns
`
`in neonatal intensive care units, and burying the dead, and placing thousands of children in foster
`
`care placements, among others.
`
`20.
`
`The burdens imposed on Plaintiff are not the normal or typical burdens of
`
`governmental programs and services. Rather, these are extraordinary costs and losses that are
`
`directly related to Defendants’ illegal actions. The Defendants’ conduct has created a public
`
`
`5 Examining the Growing Problems of Prescription Drug and Heroin Abuse (Apr. 29, 2014),
`https://www.cdc.gov/washington/testimony/2014/t20140429.htm; Vivek H. Murthy, Letter from
`the Surgeon General, August 2016, available at http://turnthetiderx.org.
`6 Id.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-12156-RWZ Document 1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 14 of 307
`
`
`
`nuisance and a blight. Governmental entities, and the services they provide their citizens, have
`
`been strained to the breaking point by this public health crisis.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants have not changed their ways or corrected their past misconduct but
`
`instead are continuing to fuel the crisis.
`
`22. Within the next hour, six Americans will die from opioid overdoses; two babies
`
`will be born dependent on opioids and begin to go through withdrawal; and drug manufacturers
`
`and distributors will earn over $2.7 million from the sale of opioids.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff brings this suit to bring the devastating march of this epidemic to a halt
`
`and to hold Defendants responsible for the crisis they caused.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`24.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
`
`Plaintiff’s claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18
`
`U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., raise a federal question. This Court also has diversity jurisdiction pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §1332, as well as supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state-law claims under
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims are so related to the RICO claim as to form part of the same
`
`case or controversy.
`
`25.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants under 18 U.S.C. §
`
`1965(b). This Court may exercise nation-wide jurisdiction over the named Def