Skip to content
 

Docket: Recent Case Activity (Filed / Decided)

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

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

Filed: 12/6/2017

Read Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: 1) Did the district court correctly conclude that the State of Maryland may prohibit price gouging in the sale of essential medicines to consumers in Maryland, including in wholesale transactions upstream from consumer sales, without infringing on the Commerce Clause?

2)    Did the district court correctly conclude that the plaintiff failed to make a clear showing of likely success on the merits of its facial void-for-vagueness challenge to Maryland’s price gouging law, which adopts long-accepted common-law standards to prohibit an unconscionable increase in the price of an off-patent drug over its previously established benchmark price?

3) Did the district court properly exercise its discretion in declining to enjoin Maryland’s law prohibiting price gouging in the sale of certain essential medicines, based on its determination that the plaintiff failed to make a clear showing that any of the relevant factors supported a preliminary injunction?


Case Name: Brotherston v. Putnam Investments

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 1st Cir.     Docket: 17-1711

Filed: 11/20/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does complicance with the Investment Company Act of 1940 equate to compliance with ERISA's fiduciary duties?

Is a settlor's contributions to an ERISA plan a defense to claims for a trustee's breach of fiduciary duty?


Case Name:  Maryland (State of) v. Neiswanger Management Servs. 

Court: Ct. App. Maryland  Docket:  No. 28, Sept. 2017 Term

Filed: 11/3/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Did the circuit court err in holding that, although the Patient's Bill of Rights authorizes a court to grant injunctive relief to remedy violations of the provisions relating to discharge, the statute excludes injunctive relief barring "company practices" that violate those provisions?


Case Name: Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Perez

Court: U.S. Dist Ct. Minn Docket: 16-cv-03289-SRN-HB

Decided: 11/3/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Result: The U.S. Dist. Court of Minnesota enjoined the Labor Department from enforcing the fiduciary rule's anti-arbitration provision against Thrivent, after DOJ changed its position, claiming the rule was at odds with federal law.


Case Name: Boothby v. California Department of Health Care Serv.

Court: Superior Ct. State of Cal., County of Los Angeles   Docket: BC627948

AARP Joined Case: 11/3/2017

Read Complaint (PDF)

Case Issue:  Can California cut Medicaid provider rates without seeking federal approval?


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

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

Filed: 11/3/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue:  Does inter partes review -- an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze patents -- violate the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.


Case Name: Brown v. District of Columbia

Court: U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir.   Docket: 17-7152

Filed: 10/30/2017

Case Issue:  Was the court's finding that Plaintiffs failed to establish "systemic deficiencies" in the manner in which the District of Columbia enrolls nursing home residents into home and community-based services against the weight of the evidence?

Did the court commit legal error by holding that it cannot craft class-wide injunctive relief if class members who have suffered discrimination cannot all benefit from the relief provided due to individualized cirumstances (e.g., some have homes to which to return and others do not)?


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 Name: Waldbuesser (formerly Grabek) v. Northrop Grumman Corp.

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. CD Cal.    Docket: 06-cv-06213-R CJC

Settled: 10/24/2017

Case Result: A settlement of $16,750,000, 4 incentive awards of $25,000 each, expenses of $1,159,114, and attorneys' fees of $5,583,333. Does not include settlement of companion case Marshall v. Northrop Grumman for claims after May 11, 2009.


Case Name: Cottrell v. Alcon Labs

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

Decided: 10/18/2017

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

Case Result: The third circuit reversed and remanded a district court grant of a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of Plaintiff standing.


Case Name: McGraw v. Chancellor Senior Management, LTD

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

Filed: 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: Thole v. U.S. Bank

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 8th Cir.  Docket: 16-1928

Decided: 10/12/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Relying on a 2002 decision, the court held ERISA does not allow a participant in a defined benefit plan to bring a lawsuit claiming liability and injunctive relief for alleged breaches of fiducairy duties when the plan is overfunded. 


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: Single v. Catholic Pioneer Church Homes

Court: Superior Ct., State of Cal., County of Sacramento    Docket: 2017-00220058

Filed: 10/4/2017

Read Complaint (PDF) and Press Release

Case Issue: Can a nursing facility refuse to readmit a resident who has exercised her administrative due process rights and won the right to readmission?


Case Name: Vaughan v. Anderson Reg'l Med. Ctr.

Court: U.S.Supreme Court    Docket: 16-1386

Decided: 10/2/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Petition for certiorari denied.


Case Name: California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR)

Court: Ct. App. State of Cal., First Appellate Div. Docket: A147987

Filed: 9/29/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Is it constitutional for California nursing facilities to substitute their own judgment for that of residents who do not lack capacity to make their own decisions?


Case Name: Market Synergy Group v. DOL

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 10th Cir. Docket: 17-3038

Filed: 9/27/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Did the Department of Labor violate the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the Conflict of Interest/Fiduciary Rule to reduce conflict of interests for participants in their retirement accounts, particularly with regard to fixed index annuities?


Case Name: Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 16-890

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Filed:  9/22/2017

Case Issue: Does the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) permit the State of Ohio to trigger its "Supplemental Process" for purging registered voters, due to a supposition that they have moved, based on such voters' failure to vote in a single federal election?


Case Name: National Ass'n for Fixed Annuities v. DOL

Court: U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir. Docket: 16-5345

Filed: 9/22/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Did the Department of Labor violate the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the Conflict of Interest/Fiduciary Rule to reduce conflict of interests for participants in their retirement accounts, particularly with regard to fixed index annuities?


Case Name: Brown v. District of Columbia (formerly known as Thorpe v. District of Columbia)

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C.    Docket: 1:10-cv-02250-ESH

Decided: 9/18/2017

Read Opinion (PDF)

Case Result: Court ruled that the Plaintiffs did not prove systemic deficiencies that could be resolved with class-wide injunctive relief. 


Case Name: Levine v. Ventura Convalescent Hospital

Court: Superior Court of Ventura, CA    Docket: 56-2011-00406719

Closed: 9/15/2017

Read Summary and Press Release

Case Result: Case settled in 2014 with court ordered injunction, fees and costs awarded and court monitoring for three years--monitoring now complete. 


Case: Charter Advanced Services v. Lange

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

Filed: 9/6/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Are interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services "information services" that are exempt from traditional regulation of telecommunication carriers, and if so, does federal law preempt state regulation of services classified as information services?


Case Name: Office of Civil Rights, HHS v. California

Court: Office of Civil Rights for HHS

Filed: 8/16/2017

Read Administrative Complaint and CMS Letter to DHCS

Case Issue: Can the federal government compel the State of California to enforce against nursing facilities that illegally dump residents from their facilities in violation of due process rights?


Case Name: Epic Systems v. Lewis; NLRB v. Murphy Oil; Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris

Court: U.S. Supreme Court  Docket: 16-285; 16-300; 16-307

Filed: 8/16/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does the National Labor Relations Act guarantee workers a right to pursue group action against their employer to challenge unfair working conditions if they waive such a right in their employment contract?

 


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

Court: Pa. Supreme Court Docket: 16 MAP 2017

Filed: 8/16/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Did the court properly dismiss Pennsylvania's consumer protection complaint by holding that nursing facilities' representations about services they promised to provide to residents were mere exaggerations that no reasonable person would rely on, or should the court have allowed discovery to determine if the representations were potentially deceptive and misleading to prospective residents?


Case: Wayside Church v. Van Buren County

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 17-88

Filed: 8/14/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does a taking, without just compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, occur where a state law requires that surplus equity from a property sold to collect delinquent property taxes be deposited into the state general fund rather than returned to the property's former owner?


Case Name: Graff v. Heritage Manor at Slidell

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. ED La.  Docket: 17-cv-06812-KDE-JCW

Filed: 7/17/2017

Read Complaint (PDF) and Press Release (PDF)

Case Issue: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Louisiana Nursing Home Residents Bill of Rights does a nursing facility resident with communications disabilities have the right to have a video camera placed in her room to facilitate communication with others, including her curator?

 


Case Name: Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir.   Docket: 16-20174

Decided: 7/10/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Court granted rehearing to decide the proper standard of judicial review in benefit disputes.

 


Case Name: U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Docket: 17-10238

Filed: 7/6/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Did the Department of Labor violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Arbitration Act and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in adopting the Conflict of Interest/Fiduciary Rule to reduce conflict of interests for participants in their retirement accounts?

 


Case Name: Osberg v. Foot Locker Retirement Plan

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir.    Docket: 15-3602-cv

Decided: 7/6/2017

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: Foot Locker must pay workers higher pension benefits to correct a 1996 retirement plan change that amounted to an impermissible and undisclosed benefit freeze. The court said the workers weren't required to show on an individual basis that they detrimentally relied on Foot Locker's statements about their pensions.

 


Some of the content presented here is in Adobe PDF format. You will need the free Acrobat Reader to access these files.