Shook Obtains $10 Million Settlement in Deceptive Trade Practices Case
For the third time this year, Shook attorneys have obtained a multimillion-dollar settlement for electronic security provider ADT in a case involving a competitor’s deceptive trade practices. Before trial began, the competitor’s last settlement offer was $2 million; after two days of proceedings, the case settled for $10 million.
California Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Petition to Compel Arbitration
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal has affirmed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration of claims against a cardiologist who signed an attorney-client agreement in his role as the sole managing agent of a physician investment group, holding that the agreement’s mandatory arbitration clause did not apply to the cardiologist individually even though he was guarantor of payment to the law firm, which sought more than $7 million in legal fees from the group.
Sampson and Page Obtain Dismissal of FLSA Suit Against Auto Club Services
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed with prejudice a complaint alleging fraud and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims against Auto Club Services, Inc. The plaintiff claimed Auto Club failed to disclose customer credit score requirements that affected her ability to sell policies and meet sales projections; she also claimed Auto Club failed to pay her overtime.
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Mirena MDL
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of litigation in which plaintiffs sought recovery for injuries they alleged were caused by Bayer’s intrauterine contraceptive system, Mirena®. Nearly 1,300 cases were certified as part of an MDL in 2013; the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the cases in July 2016.
Shook Wins Mesh Verdict for Boston Scientific
Shook, Hardy & Bacon obtained a full defense verdict in a pelvic mesh case in Delaware when a jury found that Boston Scientific’s Lynx pelvic mesh sling was not unreasonably dangerous and that the company was not negligent in the product’s design; the jury declined to award the plaintiff any damages.