Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Joseph Mier v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al
Case Number:
8:20-cv-01979
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
- Amin Wasserman
- Morrison Foerster
- Schneider Wallace
- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP
- Steptoe LLP
- Wilshire Law Firm
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
September 28, 2021
CVS Accused Of Trial-Delaying Flip-Flop In Sanitizer Row
A class of buyers of hand sanitizer have told a California federal court that CVS Health's attempt to revive six affirmative defenses reeks of hypocrisy, telling the court the pharmacy giant is snubbing its orders on the eve of the suit's discovery deadline, the same month it fought their bid to amend their complaint.
-
September 07, 2021
CVS Says New Complaint Too Late In Hand Sanitizer Suit
CVS Health is asking a California federal judge to strike a new amended complaint in a class action alleging it misled consumers on the effectiveness of its hand sanitizers, saying that the complaint's late filing is "last minute gamesmanship."
-
April 29, 2021
CVS Hand Sanitizer Buyers Win Certification In False Ad Suit
A California federal judge on Thursday certified a class of consumers who purchased CVS brand hand sanitizer that they say fails to live up to its promise of killing 99.99% of germs, ruling that the false advertising and negligent misrepresentation claims in the suit are ideal for class treatment.
-
March 17, 2021
Hand Sanitizer Buyers Want Cert. In CVS False Ad Suit
A California man suing CVS Health with allegations that its hand sanitizer fails to live up to its promise of killing 99.99% of germs is asking a federal court for class certification, saying his claims are ideal for class treatment because they rest on questions common to the item's thousands of buyers.
-
October 21, 2020
CVS Slams Suit Over Effectiveness Of Hand Sanitizer
CVS Health wants to end a federal suit alleging the company misleadingly states its store-brand hand sanitizers kill 99.99% of all germs, calling the customer pushing the case an "opportunist" who hasn't even said he used the product, let alone that he was injured by the so-called false advertisement.