Year: 2019

“From fraudulent health claims to touting an invalid patent to outright theft, our complaint provides many documented examples of Bang’s false, misleading, anti-competitive, and improper actions,” said Monster Company spokesperson. “It is time that Bang is finally held accountable for its deception.”

As detailed in the Complaint, “fueled by flagrant consumer deception and systematic anti-competitive business practices, BANG energy drink has experienced significant market growth. Monster brings this suit to halt these practices, and hold Defendants VPX and Owoc accountable.”

As noted in the Los Angeles Times, “Monster alleged that “Bang’s main pitch to consumers” — the drink’s “super creatine” compound — “is a hoax,” and that Vital also has interfered with distribution contracts to gain in-store shelf space at Monster’s expense.”

The Hueston Hennigan team includes John Hueston, Moez Kaba, Jen Hayden, Christy Von der Ahe Rayburn, Joe Reiter, Sourabh Mishra, Michael Todisco, and Eunice Leong.

As alleged in the Complaint, the “catch and kill” operation involved Soon-Shiong’s May 2015 acquisition from Sorrento of a drug called Cynviloq™—a bioequivalent to the blockbuster chemotherapy drug Abraxane, which Soon-Shiong had invented and sold to Celgene Corp. in 2010 for $2.9 billion.  Through that acquisition, Soon-Shiong became Celgene’s single largest individual shareholder.

As further detailed in the Complaint, Sorrento alleges that Soon-Shiong made false representations about his intent to market and develop Cyvniloq when he purchased it from Sorrento in 2015; in fact, the Complaint alleges, Soon-Shiong made the purchase to keep it out of the hands of Celgene’s competitors in order to preserve his financial interests as Celgene’s largest individual shareholder.

Sorrento also filed a related $1 billion arbitration demand against Soon-Shiong and his company, NantPharma LLC, seeking damages and punitive damages for fraud and breach of contract.

As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “Dr. Soon-Shiong promised Sorrento that he would ensure Cynviloq was approved and launched in the U.S. Instead, he and his companies stopped development in what the complaint termed a “catch and kill” scheme because Cynviloq’s success would have hurt sales of the drug he invented, Abraxane.”

“Through this litigation, Sorrento seeks to hold Defendants accountable for executing a scheme that kept a promising cancer drug off the market,” said lead counsel. “As alleged, not only did this cause over $1 billion in damages to Sorrento, it prevented patients from having access to an affordable alternative to a leading chemotherapy drug.”

The Hueston Hennigan team is led by John Hueston.

The story is covered in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Financial Times, Los Angeles Times, Endpoint News, FierceBiotech, Daily Journal, and Law360.

Hueston Hennigan LLP and Sidley Austin LLP are representing Bill McGlashan.

To read full Los Angeles Times article, click here.

“With Tuesday’s considered ruling, the Court has largely denied the motions to dismiss brought by each group of defendants named,” said partner Andrew Walsh. “For over three years, since the August 2015 Gold King Mine disaster, we have been fighting for full and fair recovery for our client, The Navajo Nation. Having prevailed on the motions, we look forward to continuing that effort.”

The Court’s ruling ensured that all defendants remain in the case and are subject to liability under both CERCLA and tort law.

The 2015 spill occurred when EPA workers assessing a leak at the Gold King Mine accidentally destroyed a dam holding back water contaminated with arsenic, mercury, cadmium, iron and copper, releasing the tainted water into an Animas River tributary that in turn flowed into the San Juan River and the Colorado River.

The Navajo Nation is represented by John C. Hueston, Moez M. Kaba, Andrew Walsh, and Stephen Richards.

Click here to read the Law360 article.

The district court and 2nd Circuit agreed that defendants were protected by CDA immunity and that Plaintiff’s additional claims sounding in fraud and consumer protection were inadequate as a matter of law.

The case presented an important question on the interpretation and reach of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a 1996 federal law that, as relevant here, outlines tech companies’ responsibilities towards their users.

In an article to Reuters partner Moez M. Kaba said, “the decision clarified that CDA protections extend to apps, which is important in the smartphone era, where so much activity is done on apps rather than through traditional web pages.”

Grindr Holding Co. was represented by Moez M. Kaba and Allison Libeu.

To read the full Reuters article, click here.

To read the Law360 article, click here.

The federal judge dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act, False Claims Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act claims in a third amended suit by the plaintiffs, and barred the plaintiffs from amending or re-filing.

As noted in a Law360 article, “Judge Koh determined that it was the end of the line for all of Lesnik’s claims because he struck a deal in June 2016 to release ‘all wage and hour and employment-related claims,’ among other things, against Tesla and Eisenmann.” the FLSA and FCA claims had to be tossed because Tesla and Eisenmann did not qualify as the plaintiffs’ “joint employers,” and were never under any obligation to pay the plaintiffs’ alleged visa fees. Some claims were also dumped because one of the plaintiffs had “struck a deal in June 2016 to release  ‘all wage and hour and employment-related claims,’ among other things, against Tesla and Eisenmann.”

Click here to read full article.

As noted in the Law360 article, partner Moez Kaba said, “We look forward to a trial as soon as possible where the Navajo Nation can finally obtain recovery for this unprecedented environmental disaster.”

The 2015 spill occurred when EPA workers assessing a leak at the Gold King Mine accidentally destroyed a dam holding back water contaminated with arsenic, mercury, cadmium, iron and copper, releasing the tainted water into an Animas River tributary that in turn flowed into the San Juan River and the Colorado River.

The Navajo Nation is represented by John Hueston, Moez Kaba, Andrew Walsh, and Stephen Richards.

“The Court’s decision today has significant implications for civil and administrative procedure and will provide clarity to the lower courts and litigants on this important issue,” said John Hueston, who argued the case before the Supreme Court in November 2018. “We are thrilled with the result for our client.”

The question presented in the Supreme Court appeal was whether Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and mandatory claims-processing rules in general—were susceptible to equitable tolling. This question of first impression resulted in split rulings from the U.S. Courts of Appeal.

The Hueston Hennigan team argued that Rule 23(f), which provides a party with 14 days from the entry of a class certification order to file a petition for permission to appeal with the court of appeals, is an emphatic and mandatory claim-processing rule that is not subject to judge-made exception. Hueston Hennigan further argued that the Ninth Circuit had improperly created “broad and unprecedented equitable exceptions” to excuse the plaintiff’s late 23(f) petition, by essentially nullifying Rule 23(f)’s deliberately narrow 14-day interlocutory appeal window. As Hueston Hennigan argued, Rule 23(f) was specifically crafted “to minimize the disruption and delay in the context of class action cases.”

This appeal arose after Hueston Hennigan successfully obtained class decertification at the district court, and Class Plaintiff/Appellee Lambert missed the deadline set forth in Rule 23(f), to file a petition for permission to appeal the order in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless found that Rule 23(f) was subject to equitable exceptions, and then applied those exceptions to excuse Lambert’s late filing and reverse the district court. Hueston Hennigan sought certiorari of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which the Supreme Court granted in June.

Nutraceutical was represented at the U.S. Supreme Court by John Hueston, Joseph Reiter and Michael Todisco.

See Law360 article, “Missed Appeal Deadline Can’t Be Extended, Justices Rule.”

See Law360 article, “Justices Weigh Missed Deadline In Nutraceutical False Ad Suit.”