`IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION
`OPIATE LITIGATION
`
`This document relates to:
`
`THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION,
`
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`
`v.
`
`PURDUE PHARMA L.P., et al.,
`
`
`DEFENDANTS.
`
`
`
`THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION’S
`CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE NATION’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 1 of 177. PageID #: 23914
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`MDL No. 2804
`
`Master Docket No.:
`1:17-MD-02804-DAP
`
`Hon. Judge Dan A. Polster
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 2 of 177. PageID #: 23915
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`NATURE OF THE CASE .............................................................................................................. 3
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................................................ 7
`DENIALS OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS IN RELATED OPIOID CASES ................................... 9
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 13
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13
`I.
`THE NATION HAS STANDING. ................................................................................... 14
`A.
`The Nation Has Parens Patriae Standing. ............................................................ 14
`B.
`The Nation Has Standing Even Apart From the Parens Patriae Doctrine. .......... 16
`THE NATION’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PREEMPTED. ................................................... 17
`A.
`The Nation’s Misrepresentation Claims Are Not Preempted. .............................. 17
`1.
`The Nation’s Claims Against Brand-Name Manufacturers Are Not
`Preempted. ................................................................................................ 18
`The Nation’s Misrepresentation Claims Against Generic Manufacturers
`Are Not Preempted. .................................................................................. 21
`The Nation’s Diversion Claims Are Not Preempted. ........................................... 23
`B.
`THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGES CAUSATION. .................................. 24
`A.
`Under Oklahoma Law, Causation Is Typically a Fact Question and Is Not
`Resolved on a Motion to Dismiss. ........................................................................ 25
`The Nation Has Adequately Alleged a Casual Connection Between Defendants’
`Actions and Omissions and the Resulting Injuries. .............................................. 26
`Intervening Events Do Not Break the Causal Chain. ........................................... 30
`C.
`THE NATION HAS ADEQUATELY PLED COGNIZABLE INJURY. ........................ 35
`A.
`Section 1621e of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Does Not Bar
`Recovery. .............................................................................................................. 36
`1.
`The Nation Seeks to Recover for Care the Nation Itself Provided. .......... 37
`2.
`Section 1621e Does Not Bar Recovery for Care the Nation Provided. .... 38
`The Nation’s Injuries Are Not Derivative. ........................................................... 45
`B.
`The Municipal Cost Recovery Rule Does Not Apply to the Nation. .................... 48
`C.
`The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to the Nation’s Claims. .............. 50
`D.
`THE NATION HAS ADEQUATELY PLED WITH PARTICULARITY. ..................... 52
`A.
`Rule 9(b) is Designed to Give Defendants Notice of the Claims Against Them,
`Not Painstaking Details of All Possible Facts. ..................................................... 53
`
`V.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 3 of 177. PageID #: 23916
`
`The Nation’s Allegations Give Defendants the Necessary Notice. ...................... 55
`B.
`Defendants’ Objections to “Group Pleading” Lack Merit. ................................... 59
`C.
`STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ARE NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY. ........................ 60
`A.
`Statutes of Limitation Do Not Apply to Suits Brought by Tribal Governments. . 61
`B.
`Adjudication of Statutes of Limitation is Premature. ........................................... 62
`C.
`The Nation Has Adequately Pled Facts to Toll and Delay Accrual of All
`Applicable Statutes. .............................................................................................. 63
`1.
`The Nation’s Claims Did Not Accrue Until the Nation Discovered That It
`Was Injured Due to Defendants’ Misconduct. .......................................... 64
`Marketing Defendants’ Fraudulent Concealment Tolls the Statute of
`Limitations. ............................................................................................... 68
`The Continuing Violations Doctrine Tolls the Statute of Limitations. ..... 70
`3.
`VII. THE NATION’S CLAIMS DO NOT FAIL FOR LACK OF SERVICE AND/OR
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION. ......................................................................................... 72
`VIII. DEFENDANTS’ ASSERTIONS THAT THE NATION HAS FAILED TO ALLEGE
`ACTIONABLE MISCONDUCT ARE WITHOUT MERIT. .......................................... 74
`A.
`The Nation States a Claim for Public Nuisance. ................................................... 74
`1.
`Oklahoma Statutory and Case Law Recognize that Public Nuisance
`Claims Can Be Products-Based. ............................................................... 75
`a.
`Oklahoma’s Nuisance Statute Does Not Prohibit Products-Based
`Nuisance Claims. .......................................................................... 75
`Case Law from Oklahoma and Other Jurisdictions Supports the
`Concept of Products-Based Public Nuisance Claims. .................. 76
`The Nation Separately Alleges Property-Based Public Nuisance. 81
`c.
`The Nation Adequately Alleges Interference with a Public Right. .......... 82
`The Nation Adequately Alleges That Defendants Exerted Sufficient
`Control Over Opioids to Establish Liability. ............................................ 84
`The Nation States a Negligence Claim Against All Defendants. ......................... 87
`1.
`Legal Standards ......................................................................................... 88
`2.
`Defendants Owe Duties to the Nation. ..................................................... 88
`3.
`The Complaint Alleges Defendants Breached Their Duties. .................... 94
`4.
`Defendants’ Conduct Constitutes Negligence Per Se. .............................. 95
`5.
`Oklahoma’s “Innocent Seller” Statute Does Not Apply. .......................... 98
`The Nation States a Claim for Unjust Enrichment. .............................................. 98
`
`2.
`3.
`
`VI.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`b.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 4 of 177. PageID #: 23917
`
`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`An Oklahoma Court Has Held That Oklahoma Stated an Unjust
`Enrichment Claim Under Oklahoma Law In an Opioids Case Similar to
`This Case. .................................................................................................. 99
`The Complaint Sufficiently Alleges a Benefit to Defendants. ............... 100
`The Nation’s Unjust Enrichment Claims Are Not Derivative or
`Duplicative of Its Other Claims. ............................................................. 103
`The Availability of Remedies at Law If the Nation Succeeds on Its Other
`Claims Does Not Support Dismissal....................................................... 104
`The Nation States a Claim for Civil Conspiracy. ............................................... 105
`1.
`The Nation’s Civil Conspiracy Claim Is Not Defeated by Distributors’
`Denial of the Nation’s Allegations. ........................................................ 105
`The Nation Sufficiently Pleads Civil Conspiracy. .................................. 107
`The Nation Pleads Civil Conspiracy with the Requisite Level of
`Particularity. ............................................................................................ 109
`It Is Immaterial That the Nation’s Civil Conspiracy Claim Cannot be
`Based on Negligence. .............................................................................. 110
`The Nation’s Civil Conspiracy Claims Should Not Be Dismissed Based on
`the Purported Insufficiency of the Nation’s Other Claims. .................... 110
`The Nation Has Properly Alleged RICO Violations. .......................................... 111
`1.
`The Complaint Adequately Alleges Direct Injury. ................................. 114
`2.
`The Complaint Alleges an Injury to “Business or Property.” ................. 121
`3.
`The Complaint Adequately Alleges Predicate Acts. ............................... 126
`a.
`The Nation Alleges Mail and Wire Fraud. .................................. 126
`b.
`The Nation Alleges Controlled Substance Violations. ............... 130
`c.
`The Nation Alleges Travel Act Violations. ................................ 131
`The Complaint Alleges Participation in an Enterprise. .......................... 134
`a.
`The Complaint States That Marketing Defendants Formed the
`Opioid Marketing Enterprise. ..................................................... 135
`The Complaint States That Defendants Formed the Opioid Supply
`Enterprise. ................................................................................... 136
`The Nation States Claims for Violations of the Lanham Act Against All
`Defendants. ......................................................................................................... 139
`1.
`The Heightened Pleading Standard Does Not Apply to the Nation’s
`Lanham Act Claims. ............................................................................... 140
`The Nation Has Stated a Claim Against Distributors. ............................ 141
`
`b.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 5 of 177. PageID #: 23918
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`The Nation Has Stated a Claim Against Marketing Defendants. ........... 144
`The Nation Has Stated A Claim Against Pharmacies. ............................ 145
`The Nation Has Stated a Claim Against Generic Manufacturers. .......... 148
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 6 of 177. PageID #: 23919
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acoma Pueblo v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
`slip op., No. 99-CV-1049 (D.N.M. July 30, 2001) ............................................................37, 38
`
`Alabama Coushatta Tribe v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
`aff’d, 46 F. App’x 225 (5th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................47
`
`Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium v. Settlement Funds Held For or to Be
`Paid on Behalf of E.R. ex rel. Ridley,
`84 P.3d 418 (Alaska 2004).......................................................................................................45
`
`Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico,
`458 U.S. 592 (1982) ...................................................................................................15, 16, 126
`
`Allegheny Gen. Hosp. v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`228 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 2000) (Pennsylvania)............................................................................99
`
`Allstate Ins. Co., v. Med. Evaluations, P.C.,
`No. 13-14682, 2014 WL 2559230 (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2014) ..............................................123
`
`Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp.,
`605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................137
`
`In re Amending & Revising Okla. Unif. Jury Instructions—Civil,
`217 P.3d 620 (Okla. 2009) .......................................................................................................99
`
`Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs., Inc.,
`889 F. Supp. 2d. 1304 (M.D. Fla. 2012) ........................................................................147, 148
`
`Anctil v. Ally Fin., Inc.,
`998 F. Supp. 2d 127 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom.,
`Babb v. Capitalsource, Inc., 588 F. App’x 66 (2d Cir. 2015) ...............................................138
`
`Animal Legal Defense Fund v. HVFG LLC,
`939 F. Supp. 2d 992 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ...................................................................................147
`
`Arnett v. Mylan, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-00114, 2010 WL 2035132 (S.D. W. Va. May 20, 2010) ..................................133
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................13, 106, 107
`
`Ashley Cty. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009) (Arkansas) .................................................................................99
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 7 of 177. PageID #: 23920
`
`Atria v. Vanderbilt Univ.,
`142 F. App’x 246 (6th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................99
`
`Att’y Gen. of Canada v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.,
`103 F. Supp. 2d 134 (N.D.N.Y. 2000), judgment aff’d, 268 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.
`2001) ......................................................................................................................................126
`
`Avery Dennison Corp. v. Four Pillars Enter. Co.,
`45 F. App’x 479 (6th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................103, 104
`
`Ayres v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`234 F.3d 514 (11th Cir. 2000) ...............................................................................................129
`
`Bank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami,
`137 S. Ct. 1296 (2017) .....................................................................................................17, 114
`
`Barsh v. Mullins,
`338 P.2d 845 (Okla. 1959) .....................................................................................................111
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................13, 107, 136
`
`Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
`Corp.,
`No. 1:18-op-45749 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2018), ECF No. 23. ........................................ passim
`
`Blatchford v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium,
`645 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................43
`
`United States ex rel. Bledsoe v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc.,
`501 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................................55, 140
`
`Bolger v. Young Drug Prods. Corp.,
`463 U.S. 60 (1983) .........................................................................................................143, 146
`
`Bowman v. Presley,
`212 P.3d 1210 (Okla. 2009) .....................................................................................................25
`
`Boyle v. ASAP Energy, Inc.,
`408 P.3d 183 (Okla. 2017) .......................................................................................................92
`
`Boyle v. United States,
`556 U.S. 938 (2009) .......................................................................................................134, 135
`
`Brewer v. Murray,
`292 P.3d 41 (Okla. Ct. App. 2012) ..........................................................................................91
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 8 of 177. PageID #: 23921
`
`Bridge v. Phx. Bond & Indem. Co.,
`553 U.S. 639 (2008) .......................................................................................................114, 115
`
`Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant,Inc.,
`725 P.2d 300 (Okla. 1986) .......................................................................................................25
`
`United States ex rel. Brown v. Celegene Corp.,
`No. CV 10-3165, 2014 WL 3605896 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ...........................................................58
`
`Brown v. W.M. Acree Trust,
`999 P.2d 1119 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000) ....................................................................................65
`
`Bubalo v. Navegar, Inc.,
`No. 96 C 3664, 1998 WL 142359 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 1998) ...................................................83
`
`Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm.,
`531 U.S. 341 (2001) .....................................................................................................23, 24, 97
`
`Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant,
`505 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2007) .........................................................................................71, 86
`
`Camden Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
`123 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.N.J. 2000), aff’d, 273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2001)..................................49
`
`Camden Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta, U.S.A. Corp.,
`273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................81
`
`Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds,
`519 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................125
`
`Carista v. Valuck,
`394 P.3d 253 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) ......................................................................................32
`
`Carmack v. UPMC,
`No. G-D-14-013571, 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 14730 ...........................................97
`
`Okla. ex rel. Cartwright v. Tidmore,
`674 P. 2d 14 (Okla. 1983) ........................................................................................................62
`
`Cataldo v. United States Steel Corp.,
`676 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................60
`
`Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King,
`533 U.S. 158 (2001) .......................................................................................................111, 112
`
`Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc.,
`855 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................................19
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 9 of 177. PageID #: 23922
`
`Christensen v. Harris Cty.,
`529 U.S. 576 (2000) .................................................................................................................40
`
`City of Boston v. Smith & Wesson Corp.,
`No. 199902590, 2000 WL 1473568 (Mass. Super. Ct. July 13, 2000)..................................103
`
`City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
`211 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ............................................................................. passim
`
`City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
`No. 14 C 4361, 2015 WL 2208423 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2015) ...................................................58
`
`City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
`768 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 2002), superseded on other grounds by statute.....................29, 80, 94
`
`City of Cleveland v. Ameriquest Mortg. Secs., Inc.,
`621 F. Supp. 2d 513 (N.D. Ohio 2009) ..................................................................................126
`
`City of Cleveland v. Ameriquest Mortgage Securities,
`615 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................120
`
`City of Everett v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.,
`C14-209RSM, 2017 WL 4236062 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 25, 2017) ................................... passim
`
`City of Flagstaff v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.,
`719 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1983) .............................................................................................49, 50
`
`City of Los Angeles v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
`No. 2:14-cv-04168-ODW, 2014 WL 6453808 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2014) ...........................103
`
`City of Miami v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2015) (Florida), rev’d on other grounds, 137 S. Ct.
`1296 (2017) ..............................................................................................................................99
`
`City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc.,
`247 F.R.D. 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) .............................................................................................80
`
`City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
`315 F. Supp. 2d 256 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) ...................................................................25, 29, 30, 33
`
`City of New York v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc.,
`597 N.Y.S.2d 698 (1993) .......................................................................................................103
`
`City of New York v. Smokes-Sprites.com, Inc.,
`541 F.3d 425 (2d Cir. 2008), rev’d on other grounds, Hemi Group, LLC v.
`City of N.Y., 559 U.S. 1 (2010) ..............................................................................................125
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 10 of 177. PageID #: 23923
`
`City of Perry v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`188 F. Supp. 3d 276, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)..............................................................................81
`
`City of Spokane v. Monsanto Co.,
`No. 2:15-CV-00201-SMJ, 2016 WL 6275164 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2016)............................92
`
`City of St. Louis v. Benjamin Moore & Co.,
`226 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. 2007) ....................................................................................................81
`
`In re ClassicStar Mare Lease Litig.,
`727 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................113
`
`Clulow v. State of Oklahoma,
`700 F.2d 1291 (10th Cir. 1983) ...............................................................................................68
`
`Colby v. Herrick,
`849 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2017), overruled on other grounds by Baker v. Bd. of
`Regents of Kan., 991 F.2d 628 (10th Cir. 1993) ......................................................................71
`
`Cole v. Asarco, Inc.,
`No. 03-CV-327, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17741 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 24, 2010) ..........................71
`
`Coley v. Lucas Cty., Ohio,
`799 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Compsource Okla. v. BNY Mellon, N.A.,
`2009 WL 2366112 (E.D. Okla. July 31, 2009) ........................................................................51
`
`Conlin v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,
`714 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................77, 100
`
`Corporan v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP,
`No. 16-2305-JWL, 2016 WL 3881341 (D. Kan. July 18, 2016) .............................................90
`
`Cox v. Adm’r U.S. Steel & Carnegie,
`17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994) ...............................................................................................116
`
`Cty. of Oakland v. City of Detroit,
`866 F.2d 839 (6th Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................126
`
`Cty. of Summit v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
`No. 18-OP-45090 (N.D. Ohio May 25, 2018), ECF No. 497-1 ....................................... passim
`
`D. Penguin Bros. Ltd. v. City Nat. Bank,
`587 F. App’x 663 (2d Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................................113
`
`In re Daou Sys., Inc.,
`411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................................53, 54
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 11 of 177. PageID #: 23924
`
`In re Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`756 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................19, 99
`
`Davidson v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`337 F. 3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) ..............................................................................................71
`
`Delbrel v. Doenges Bros. Ford, Inc.,
`913 P.2d 1318 (Okla. 1996) ...............................................................................................25, 90
`
`Democrat Printing Co. v. Johnson,
`175 P. 737 (Okla. 1918) .........................................................................................................107
`
`Detroit Board of Education v. Celotex Corp.,
`493 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) ..................................................................................81
`
`State of Ohio ex rel. Dewine v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.,
`No. 17 CI 261 (Ohio Ct. C.P. Ross Cty. Aug. 22, 2018 .................................................. passim
`
`Digital Design Grp., Inc. v. Info Builders, Inc.,
`24 P. 3d 834 (Okla. 2001) ..................................................................................................65, 67
`
`District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A., Corp.,
`872 A.2d 633 (D.C. 2005) .......................................................................................................94
`
`Doe v. Roe,
`958 F.2d 763 (7th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................122
`
`Dow Corning Corp. v. Jie Xiao,
`No. 11-10008-BC, 2011 WL 2015517 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2011) ......................................140
`
`Dowling v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,
`No. 2:05-CV-049, 2006 WL 571895 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2006) ............................................113
`
`Duncan v. Leeds,
`742 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1984) ...................................................................................................63
`
`In re Duramax Diesel Litig.,
`298 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1056–57 (E.D. Mich. 2018) .................................................................59
`
`Duro Corp. v. Canadian Standards Ass’n,
`No. 1:17 CV 1127, 2017 WL 6326862 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2017) ......................................146
`
`Dutsch v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc.,
`845 P.2d 187 (Okla. 1992) .......................................................................................................51
`
`Eberhard Architects, LLC v. Bogart Architecture, Inc.,
`314 F.R.D. 567 (N.D. Ohio, 2016) ............................................................................................1
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 12 of 177. PageID #: 23925
`
`Elcometer, Inc. v. TQC-USA, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-14628, 2013 WL 1433388 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2013) .........................................140
`
`State ex rel Elsey v. Silverthorn,
`161 P.2d 858 (Okla. 1945) .............................................................................................106, 107
`
`English v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`496 U.S. 72 (1990) .............................................................................................................40, 41
`
`Fargo v. Hays-Kuehn,
`352 P.3d 1223 (Okla. 2015) .....................................................................................................88
`
`Foote v. Town of Watonga,
`130 P. 597 (Okla. 1913) ...........................................................................................................62
`
`Ford v. Penn. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency,
`No. 5:17-cv-49, 2018 WL 1377858 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2018) .............................................54
`
`In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`852 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2017), cert. granted sub nom., Merck Sharp & Dohme
`Corp v. Albrecht, 138 S. Ct. 2705 (2018) ..........................................................................20, 21
`
`Fulgenzi v. PLIVA, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n,
`505 U.S. 88 (1992) ...................................................................................................................41
`
`Gaylord Entm’t Co. v. Thompson,
`958 P.2d 128 (Okla. 1998) .....................................................................................................105
`
`Gearhart Indus. v. Grayfox Operating Co.,
`829 P.2d 1005 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992) ....................................................................................65
`
`Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson,
`626 F.2d 708 (9th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................43
`
`Granader v. Pub. Bank,
`417 F.2d 75 (6th Cir. 1969) .......................................................................................................9
`
`Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
`of Michigan,
`No. 14-CV-11349, 2017 WL 3116262 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2017) ........................................43
`
`Gross v. United States,
`676 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1982) ...................................................................................................71
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 13 of 177. PageID #: 23926
`
`Grubbs v. Sheakley Group, Inc.,
`807 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................140, 142, 143
`
`Guba v. Huron Cty.,
`600 F. App’x 374 (6th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................71
`
`Gucwa v. Lawley,
`731 F. App’x 408 (6th Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................124
`
`Harjo’s Heirs v. Standley,
`305 P. 2d 864 (Okla. 1956) ......................................................................................................65
`
`Harvell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
`164 P.3d 1028 (Okla. 2006) ...................................................................................................100
`
`Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
`455 U.S. 363 (1982) .................................................................................................................70
`
`Haw. Health & Welfare Tr. Fund for Operating Eng’rs v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`52 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D. Haw. 1999) .....................................................................................124
`
`State of Missouri ex rel. Hawley v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.,
`No. 1722-CC10626 (Mo. Cir. Ct. Apr. 25, 2018) ............................................................ passim
`
`Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York,
`559 U.S. 1 (2010) ...........................................................................................................118, 119
`
`Hendricks v. Pharmacia Corp.,
`No. 2:12-cv-00613, 2014 WL 2515478, at *8 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2014), report
`and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL 4961550 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2014) .........................22
`
`Hensley v. City of Columbus,
`557 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................71
`
`Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.,
`503 U.S. 258 (1992) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Hoover v. Langston Equipment Assocs., Inc.,
`958 F.2d 742 ......................................................................................................................59, 60
`
`Horton v. Hamilton,
`345 P.3d 357 (Okla. 2015) .......................................................................................................64
`
`Howard v. Zimmer, Inc.,
`299 P.3d 463 (Okla. 2013) ...........................................................................................88, 95, 97
`
`Hull v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,
`812 F.2d 584 (10th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................90
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 1008 Filed: 09/28/18 14 of 177. PageID #: 23927
`
`State of Oklahoma ex rel. Hunter v. Purdue L.P.,
`No. CJ-2017-816 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Dec. 6, 2017) ............................................................. passim
`
`Ileto v. Glock, Inc.,
`349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................31, 80
`
`Ill. Brick Co. v. Illinois,
`431 U.S. 720 (1977) ..................................