Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, who obtained a $475 million judgment last year against opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, announced on Monday a new lawsuit against three distributors of the prescription painkillers.

The lawsuit, filed on Monday, seeks to hold McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. liable for Oklahoma's costs associated with the opioid crisis.

Related: Opioid epidemic cost U.S. $631 billion over the past 4 years

"Defendants in this case are three major drug distributors who act as middle-men in the pharmaceutical drug supply chain," Hunter wrote in the lawsuit, which he filed in Cleveland County District Court. "Defendants fueled the opioid crisis by supplying massive and patently unreasonable quantities of opioids to communities throughout the United States, including Oklahoma. Defendants ignored their duties and responsibility to protect against oversupply and diversion of opioids for illicit and non-medical uses. Defendants did so for one reason: greed."

The suit drew a quick response from some of the defendants.

McKesson spokesman David Matthews wrote in an email: "Our company plays an important but limited role in the pharmaceutical supply chain, and any suggestion that McKesson drove demand for opioids in this country reflects a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of our role as a distributor. We will continue to fight that mischaracterization and defend ourselves in the litigation."

In a statement, AmerisourceBergen noted that opioid pharmaceuticals made up 2 percent of the company's sales: "We are dedicated to doing our part as a distributor to mitigate the diversion of these drugs without interfering with clinical decisions made by doctors, who interact directly with patients and decide what treatments are most appropriate for their care. Beyond our reporting and immediate halting of potentially suspicious orders, we refuse service to customers we deem as a diversion risk and provide daily reports to the DEA that detail the quantity, type, and the receiving pharmacy of every single order of these products that we distribute."

A Cardinal Health spokeswoman responded by stating that the company "supports the global settlement framework as a path to opioid litigation resolution."

She added: "We continue to be actively involved in the progression of the settlement framework. If it is not successful, we are prepared to vigorously defend ourselves at trials and are confident that the facts presented will show we take our role and the responsibility that comes with it seriously, work hard every day to get it right, and make changes when we find ways to improve."

The lawsuit comes after Hunter's office has racked up more than $363 million in settlements with other companies tied to the opioid crisis, most recently on Friday, when Endo Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay $8.75 million to settle claims out of court. Last year, Hunter's office reached a $270 million settlement with Purdue Pharma, which has since filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and an $85 million settlement with Teva Pharmaceuticals.

At a press conference on Monday, Hunter praised Endo as a "responsible corporate citizen"  and alluded that the three distributors, which previously paid millions of dollars in fines to government authorities over their marketing of opioids, should settle his lawsuit. He specifically referenced a $260 million settlement that the same three companies reached in October to settle similar claims brought by two Ohio counties.

"It's hard to overlook that as precedent," he said of the Ohio settlement, which he called a "benchmark." He noted that the two Ohio counties have a population that is half that of the state of Oklahoma.

Hunter also is appealing the $475 million judgment, which followed a $572 million bench verdict against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, in the only opioid trial in the nation. In briefs filed last month, his office claims the judge should have extended the abatement plan beyond a year, while Johnson & Johnson laid out 39 reasons why the Oklahoma Supreme Court should reverse the judgment, including the judge's interpretation of public nuisance.

Unlike the case against Johnson & Johnson, Hunter's office is not alleging public nuisance claims against the three distributors. The lawsuit alleges negligence and unjust enrichment and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages for past costs. It does not ask for an abatement plan going forward.

The case against the distributors also focuses on the role the companies played in failing to report suspicious orders of opioid pills.

"We will show that these companies repeatedly ignored red flags and, in doing so, played a major role in breaking the dam of narcotic conservatism when they flooded the country with opioids," Hunter said at Monday's press conference. "Our lawsuit will show these companies poured opioids into communities in the state while ignoring red flags and suspicious orders."

Like the case against Johnson & Johnson, Hunter's new lawsuit points to a correlation between the oversupply of opiate pharmaceuticals and the rising number of deaths in Oklahoma. According to Hunter's office, there were 479 prescriptions for opioids per hours in Oklahoma in 2017—enough for each adult in the state to have 156 pills.

Nix Patterson and Whitten Burrage, which were involved in the trial against Johnson & Johnson, assisted Hunter's office in filing the new lawsuit.

Read more: 

• Opioid manufacturers: A public nuisance?
• The opioid crisis: How should employers respond?
• Opioid prescriptions ebb but addiction, overdoses still vex U.S.