Find this week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.
Issues at Stake: HRSA Audit Process; Contract Pharmacy; Other
- In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) filed a reply in support of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
- In a breach of contract claim filed by a 340B Covered Entity against several related party Medicare Advantage plans, the 340B Covered Entity filed a motion for leave to file its second amended complaint and the court ordered that the related party Medicare Advantage plans show cause why the motion for leave should not be granted.
- In one HRSA audit process case, the plaintiff filed a motion for stay of agency action and preliminary injunction.
- In two HRSA audit process cases, HRSA filed a motion to dismiss for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- In a case challenging HRSA’s policy prohibiting all manufacturer conditions on 340B transactions, the court approved the parties’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
- In four cases challenging a proposed state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements in West Virginia and Missouri:
- WV: In three cases, defendants filed status reports.
- MO: Intervenors and defendants separately filed motions to dismiss following the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
Matt David, law clerk in McDermott’s Los Angeles office, also contributed to this blog post.
