Javascript is not enabled.

Javascript must be enabled to use this site. Please enable Javascript in your browser and try again.

AARP Foundation - Legal Advocacy: Consumer and Utilities Do... Skip to content

Docket: Consumer Litigation

Case Name: Bright v. Brookdale Senior Living

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. EMD Tenn  Docket: 19-cv-00374

AARP Joined: 8/14/2019

Read Complaint (PDF) 

Case Issue:  Did Brookdale deceive class members in violation of state consumer protection statutes when it promised to provide care based on resident's assessed care needs but, in reality, provided care based on pre-determined profit goals set by the company's headquarters?

Case Name: FTC v. Abbvie

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 3d Cir.   Docket: 18-2621, 18-2748, 18-2758

Filed: 7/26/2019

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 13(b), which authorizes the FTC to "enjoin any . . . Act or practice" by which a defendant "is violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law enforced by the FTC," authorize equitable remedies beyond injunctions, including restitution and disgorgement?

Case Name: FTC v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir.   Docket: 17-3745

Decided: 2/21/2019

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the claims that Prevagen is deceptively advertised.

Case Name: Frosh v. Association for Accessible Medicines

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 18-546

Decided: 2/19/2019

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: The Supreme Court declined to review the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that Maryland's price gouging law violates the dormant commerce clause because it directly regulates the price of transactions that occur outside Maryland.

Case Name: Shakespeare v. Live Well Financial (consumer)

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ED N.Y.   Docket: 18-7299

Filed: 12/21/2018

Read Complaint (PDF) and Press Release (PDF) Press Release (Spanish)

Issue: Did Live Well Financial and Celink violate reverse mortgage contracts and applicable law by prepaying property taxes of older homeowners without legal authority and without notice, and then wrongfully demanding repayment out of personal funds?

Case Name: Commonwealth of Pa. v. Golden Gate Nat. Senior Care

Court: Pa. Supreme Court Docket: 16 MAP 2017

Decided: 9/25/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF), Decision (PDF) and Article

Case Result: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Commonwealth Court, which dismissed in its entirety the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s claims against 36 nursing homes and their parent companies under the state’s unfair deceptive trade practices and consumer protection law.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that: (1) the Commonwealth is a “person in interest” under the consumer protection statute who could sue for restoration of Medicaid public funds that it paid for services whose quality and type were misrepresented by Defendants; (2) the alleged fraudulent statements Defendants made in marketing materials were not puffery as a matter of law; and (3) statements about services in bills, care plans, and resident assessments were actionable under the consumer protection statute.  The Court affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claims because the complaint did not contain sufficient facts to plead the necessary piercing of the corporate veil.  The Commonwealth can now proceed to discovery and litigate the claims against the nursing homes.

Case: Charter Advanced Services v. Lange

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 8th Cir.  Docket: 17-2290

Decided: 9/7/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Opinion (PDF)

Case Result: The panel affirmed, 2 to 1, the district court decision holding that the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is an "Information Service" pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, such that state regulation is preempted.

Case Name: Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir.   Docket: 17-3030

Decided: 8/22/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision (PDF)

Case Result:  The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision holding GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) accountable for injuries caused by taking the generic version of its drug. The court held that although GSK manufactured the brand name drug and was responsible for the label’s contents under federal law, the Food and Drug Administration would not let the company include a warning that the use of the drug had an increased risk of suicide for adults older than 24. Thus, the company could not be liable under a theory that it negligently failed to warn of known risks.

Case Name: Gish (Matter of the Estate) v. Wells Fargo Bank

Court: New Mexico State Ct., Santa Fe Cty.  Docket: D-101-PB-2015-00006

Read Amended Complaint (PDF) and Answer to Amended Complaint (PDF)

AARP Joins as Co-Counsel: 6/21/2018

Case Issue: Did Wells Fargo violate state and federal law when it originated a reverse mortgage loan that cost a borrower more than the loan for which the applicant applied and was approved; did Wells Fargo have standing to foreclose on the loan?

Case Name: Knick v. Township of Scott

Court: U.S. Supreme Court    Docket: 17-647

Filed: 6/5/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision (PDF)

Case Issue: Should the U.S. Supreme Court reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank that requires property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims?

Case Name: Oil States Energy Serv. v. Greene's Energy Group

Court: U.S. Supreme Court   Docket: 16-712

Decided: 4/24/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision (PDF)

Case Result:  The Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 

Case Name: Ass'n for Accessible Medicines v. Frosh

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 4th Cir. Docket: 17-2166

Decided: 4/13/2018

Read Amicus Brief (PDF), Article and Opinion (PDF)

Case Result: A panel of three judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland's price gouging law violates the dormant commerce clause because it directly regulates the price of transactions that occur outside Maryland. Because the court decided the case on the dormant commerce clause claim it did not address whether the statute was also void for vagueness. The State of Maryland filed a petition for rehearing en banc on April 27, 2018.

Case Name:  Runton v. Brookdale Senior Living

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. SD Fla.    Docket: 17-cv-60664-CMA

Withdrew from Case: 3/22/2019

Read Complaint (PDF)

Case Update: Withdrew from case following death of client.

Case Name: Hall v. Minnesota

Court: Minn. Supreme Court    Docket: A16-0874

Decided: 3/7/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision

Case Result: The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that unclaimed interest-bearing property transferred to the State under the Minnesota Unclaimed Property Act effects an unconstitutional taking if the State does not compensate the property owner for any lost interest. The court rejected a takings challenge absent the property's earning of interest prior to the transfer and found the notice sufficient to provide due process. 

Case Name: PHH v. CFPB

Court: U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir. Docket: 15-1177 (en banc)

Decided: 1/31/2018

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision (PDF)

Case Result: The structure of the CFPB, with a single director appointed to a five year term, who can be removed by the President only for cause, is not unconstitutional.

Case Name: T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Court: Supreme Ct. of Cal.    Docket: S233898

Decided: 12/21/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Could former manufacturers of name-brand drugs be liable under California law for the foreseeable consequences of their failure to update the drug's label to warn consumers of known risks when they had a duty to update the label but chose not to do so?

Case Name: McNair v. Johnson & Johnson

Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia   Docket: 17-0519

Filed: 10/30/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does West Virginia law permit a claim of failure to warn and negligent misrepresentation against a branded drug manufacturer when the drug ingested was produced by a generic manufacturer?

Case NameCottrell v. Alcon Labs

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 3d Cir.     Docket:  16-2015

Decided:  10/18/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of Plaintiff standing. 

Case Issue: Do glaucoma patients who use prescription eye drops have standing to sue pharmaceutical manufacturers for allegedly causing them economic injury by using packaging that dispenses eye drops that are too large, such that it overflows their eyes and is unavoidably wasted, in violation of state law that prohibits unfair practices. More specifically, can plaintiffs allege economic injury of paying for medication that is unavoidably wasted because the droppers deliver drops that are too large, such that they overflow the eye, where the manufacturer has discretion to set the price of the medication, state an injury in fact for purpose of Artilce III standing.

Case Name: McGraw v. Chancellor Senior Management, LTD

Court: Circuit Ct., Raleigh County, WV   Docket: 16-C-698

AARP Joined Case: 10/16/2017

Read Complaint (PDF)

Case Issue: Are Chancellor's practices of marketing certain levels of services, assessing care needs at admission, and charging fees based on those needs; but then, failing to have sufficient staff to actually meet those needs unfair or deceptive acts or practices under West Virginia's consumer protection statute?

Case Name: Amgen v. Sanofi

Court: U.S. Ct. App. Fed. Cir.  Docket: 17-1480

Decided: 10/5/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The Federal Circuit vacated the district court's order enjoining the sale of a cholesterol reducing drug that had been prescribed to over 18,000 people. This reversal of the permanent injunction is the result AFL sought.

Case Name: Sandoz v. Amgen

Court: U.S. Supreme Court   Docket: 15-1039

Decided: 6/5/2017 

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Article

Case Result: Consistent with our brief, a unanimous court held that under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), a generic biosimilar applicant may provide notice of commercial marketing prior to obtaining licensure from the FDA. Amgen argued that such marketing resulted in extended exclusivity for its monopoly power. The court's decision speeds up the time for generic biosimilars to enter the market, to the benefit of consumers. The court also held that the BPCIA is not enforceable by injunction under federal law, an issue that we did not address.

Case Name: U.S. ex rel. Colquitt v. Abbott Labs

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Docket: 16-10814

Decided: 5/31/2017

Read Decision

Case Result: In our lawsuit, the court affirmed the district court's decision and jury verdict in favor of Abbott Labs. We represented whistleblower Kevin Colquitt in a False Claims Act challenging the off-label marketing and use of stents for purposes not approved by the FDA. 

Case Name: Impression Products v. Lexmark International

Court: U.S. Supreme Ct.  Docket: 15-1189

Decided: 5/30/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Article, and Decision

Case Result: In a landmark decision, the Court held that while patent owners are free to set the price and negotiate contracts with purchasers, once an item is sold, a patent owner may not, by virtue of its patent, control the use or disposition of the product after ownership passes to the purchaser.

Case Name: Kindred Nursing Ctrs v. Clark

Court: U.S. Supreme Court    Docket: 16-32  

Decided: 5/15/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Kentucky Supreme Court rule requiring power of attorney (PoA) documents to specifically grant PoAs the authority to consent to arbitration. 

Case Name: McGill v. Citibank

Court: Cal. Supreme Court Docket: S224086

Decided: 4/6/2017

Read Summary, AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Court Decision (PDF)

Case Result: The court held that an arbitration agreement that waives the public's right to injunctive relief is invalid and contrary to public policy.

Case Name: Board's Investigation Regarding the Reclassification (N.J. Verizon Deregulation)

Court: N.J. Superior Ct. Docket: A-004769-14T2

Decided: 4/3/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The court deferred to and affirmed the decision of the Board of Public Utilities to deregulate and reclassify four telephone services provided by Verizon as competitive.

Case Name: Wayside Church v. Van Buren County

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir.  Docket: 15-2463, 15-2525

Decided: 3/23/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The circuit court affirmed the trial court's decision dismissing the taxpayers' claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that they must first seek relief in the state courts to recover the excess proceeds of sales of their foreclosed properties. 

Case Name: United Health Servs of Georgia v. Norton

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Docket: S16G1143

Decided: 3/6/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The court held that an arbitration agreement between a deceased nursing facility resident and the facility binds the decedent's wrongful death beneficiaries.

Case Name: Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments

Court: U.S. Supreme Court    Docket: 13-369

Decided: 6/2/2014

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The "insolubly ambiguous" test created by the federal circuit for patents is improper.

Case Name: Bilski v. Kappos

Court: U.S. Supreme Court   Docket: 08-964

Decided: 2010

Read Summary and AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Court held that the claimed "business method" was not patent eligible but left unanswered which "business method" patents would be upheld in the future.