Joseph Mier v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

8:20-cv-01979

Court:

California Central

Nature of Suit:

Other Fraud

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action

Judge:

David O. Carter

Firms

Companies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. 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.

  2. 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."

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.