|
Edited on Wed Aug-03-11 03:34 PM by Divernan
From the law firm's website: these examples were handled by his firm in the past ten years, and he worked for them until less than a year ago, while he was working there in that section of the firm, i.e, defending class actions against corporations. The all cap comments in parenthesis are mine. Everything else is word for word from the firm's marketing website - meant to appeal to more corporate clients.
Our Practice
Listing of Recent Class Actions
Sidley has played a leading role in several nationwide or statewide class product liability class actions in the past ten years:
(AGAINST PEOPLE WHO CONTRACTED HEPATITIS C AND/OR HIV FROM BLOOD DERIVATIVES USED TO TREAT HEMOPHELIA)
* Sidley has directed the defense for a major pharmaceutical company for more than 20 years in litigation regarding blood derivatives used to treat hemophilia that have been alleged to have transmitted HIV and hepatitis C. Sidley has tried multiple cases in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Texas, and Arizona and has represented the client in years of federal multi-district litigation (“MDL”). After the MDL judge certified a nationwide “issue class,” Sidley briefed and argued a mandamus petition in the Seventh Circuit, overturning class certification in a landmark decision that laid the groundwork for defense of class actions in this Circuit (In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1995)). Sidley likewise defeated class certification in 2005 in a subsequent case, In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Products Litig., No. 93 C 7452, 2005 WL 497782 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 1, 2005), in which plaintiffs from the United States and 27 other countries sought to certify a world-wide class of persons infected with hepatitis C or HIV from blood derivatives used to treat hemophilia.
(AGAINST CONSUMERS CHARGING DECEPTIVE MARKETING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS)
* Sidley represented another major pharmaceutical company in a case in which the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a putative nationwide class action challenging the company’s marketing of its prescription drug. The Court held that because the advertising is supported by the drug’s U.S. FDA-approved labeling, it is not actionable under the safe harbor provision of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and likewise cannot support a common law fraud count. The company also prevailed on summary judgment and in defeating class certification in similar litigation filed in California; those rulings are now pending on appeal.
(AGAINST A LABOR UNION HEALTH FUND ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS RE DRUG ADMINISTERED DURING SURGERY)
* Sidley represents another pharmaceutical company in a case brought in federal court in Florida in which plaintiff (a labor union health fund) alleged claims on behalf of themselves and a class of insurers arising under RICO, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and common law theories of warranty and unjust enrichment, associated with the use of a drug administered during surgeries to insureds. The court dismissed the complaint on all counts, holding that plaintiffs could not allege a direct relationship between the purported fraud and the individual physician’s decision to administer the drug, and thus could not establish proximate cause. Plaintiff has appealed this case to the Eleventh Circuit.
(DECEPTION OF CONSUMERS, THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY & HEALTH CARE INSURERS REGARDING A CHOLESTEROL DRUG LATER REMOVED FROM THE MARKET)
* In a different case handled by Sidley for the same client, the Illinois Supreme Court recently held that a consumer fraud claim based on “deception by concealment” still requires a direct or indirect communication from the defendant to the plaintiff, and there is no implied representation of safety from marketing a prescription drug. In this case, the consumer who was prescribed a cholesterol-lowering drug that was later withdrawn from the market filed a putative class action against the drug manufacturer under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). In finding for the manufacturer, the Illinois Supreme Court held that: (1) to maintain action under CFA, the plaintiff must actually be deceived (directly or indirectly) by a statement or omission by the defendant ; (2) the mere sale of a prescription medication is not a representation that the drug is safe for its intended use, so as to serve as basis for action under CFA; and (3) the alleged general deception of consumers, the medical community, the health care insurance industry, and the public did not permit recovery on “indirect deception” theory.
(AGAINST CHILD PLAINTIFFS RE SALE OF OVER THE COUNTER COUGH AND COLD DRUGS FOR USE IN YOUNG CHILDREN)
* Sidley obtained dismissal of a purported nationwide consumer class action brought against a major health care company on the basis of federal preemption. The plaintiff challenged the sale of over-the-counter cough and cold drugs for use in young children. These drugs have been sold for decades under FDA regulations that specifically permit a manufacturer to sell these drugs as safe and effective under conditions specified in the regulations. Plaintiffs’ lawyers filed nearly identical class action lawsuits against several manufacturers of OTC cough and cold drugs. Sidley took the lead in filing a joint motion to dismiss by all of the defendants in all of the cases. The United States District Court for the Central District of California concluded that the plaintiffs’ consumer fraud and breach of warranty claims were all expressly preempted by FDA regulations governing these products.
(AGAINST CHILD PLAINTIFFS RE FORMALDEHYDE CONTAMINATION OF CHILDREN'S BATH PRODUCTS)
* Sidley was retained as national coordinating counsel to defend a large personal care product company in purported nationwide class actions, spurred by a consumer group’s 2009 report of alleged contaminants in children’s bath products. Actions alleging breach of warranty, consumer fraud and unjust enrichment claims are now pending in the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of California, following the JPML’s denial of a motion for MDL consolidation. Sidley is also representing the company in related Prop 65 proceedings alleging formaldehyde contamination of children’s bath products.
(AGAINST CONSUMERS ALLEGING FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISING OF SYNTHETIC VITAMIN C PRODUCTS)
* Sidley recently represented a major nutritional supplement manufacturer in a lawsuit pending in the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiff, who has brought a putative Illinois-wide consumer fraud class action, alleged that the company falsely and misleadingly advertised and promoted a synthetic vitamin C products to the effect that these products offered 24-hour immune protection and were better than natural vitamin C. The company entered into a very favorable settlement of the plaintiff’s individual claims and all claims – including the putative class claims – were voluntarily dismissed.
(AGAINST CUSTOMERS ALLEGING FRAUDULENT AND MISLEADING SALES OF INEFFECTIVE TERMITE TREATMENT METHOD)
* Sidley currently represents a consumer services company in a putative class action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action seeking to represent all customers in California, alleging violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California Business and Professions Code (Sec. 17500), and asserting other theories under state common law. Plaintiffs are challenging all aspects of the sale of a particular termite treatment method to customers in California, alleging that the sales materials are false and misleading and challenging the effectiveness of the treatment.
Sidley achieved a major victory for the same client when, in June 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas awarded summary judgment in the company’s favor, dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs had filed a putative class action seeking to represent all customers in Arkansas, alleging violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence, all arising out of termite treatment services. The court found that all of the named plaintiff’s claims were time-barred and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Company had fraudulently concealed his cause of action.
Sidley achieved a major victory for the same client when a Florida appellate court vacated a lower court ruling certifying a class and subclass of 65,000 customers. After nearly seven years of contentious litigation and appeals, the Florida Court of Appeal (Second District) vacated a lower court opinion certifying a statewide class of customers. In 2002, the trial court certified a class and subclass of 65,000 customers, who alleged that the company engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices, misleading advertising, racketeering, and breach of contract in connection with the provision of termite treatment services. On appeal in 2003, the Florida appellate court reversed, finding that the lower court’s certification order did not contain the required factual and legal findings. On remand, after additional briefing and multiple hearings, the lower court again certified the same class and subclass. In a 34-page decision adopting Sidley’s arguments, the appellate court on June 30, 2006, vacated in its entirety the lower court’s class certification order, effectively bringing to an end the plaintiffs’ seven-year quest to certify a class.
On July 17, 2006, in one of the first cases to consider the propriety of class certification under the American Arbitration Association’s rules, a three-member AAA panel denied a claimant’s motion for certification against the same consumer services company. After extensive briefing, expert discovery, and an evidentiary hearing, the panel found that individual issues as to liability, causation, and damages predominated over any common issues, making class certification improper.
(AGAINST CONSUMERS SUING FOR DEFECTIVE PRODUCT AND FAILURE TO HONOR WARRANTEES OF ROOFING SHINGLES)
* A leading building products manufacturer has retained Sidley to defend a purported nationwide consumer class action brought against the company. The lawsuit challenges the manufacture, design, sale, and marketing of 18 types of roofing shingles during the past 25 years, alleging that the shingles prematurely fail and that the company has refused to honor its warranty obligations. The plaintiff alleges violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, strict products liability, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. Notwithstanding the broad allegations of the complaint, Sidley has been successful in limiting discovery to the one type of roofing shingle purchased by the named plaintiffs, arguing that the named plaintiffs have no standing to seek discovery on behalf of purchasers of different type of shingles.
(AGAINST CONSUMERS SUING FOR FALSE LABELING OF POULTRY AS RAISED WITHOUT ANTIBIOTICS)
* Sidley was retained to handle several federal putative class actions (later consolidated into an MDL) arising out of the use of the claims “Raised Without Antibiotics” and “Raised Without Antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans” (“RWA claims”) in advertising and marketing of certain poultry products by one of the country’s largest poultry producers. Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) had approved the RWA claims for purposes of product labeling, the USDA subsequently withdrew its approval and required the company to re-label all of its RWA products. Plaintiffs sought certification of state and nationwide classes, claiming that the company violated state consumer protection acts in using RWA claims in their advertisements and labeling. The cases were consolidated in an MDL before Judge Richard D. Bennett in the District of Maryland, and were subsequently resolved quite favorably.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
Replies to this thread
-
-