MULTIPLAN OUT-OF-NETWORK HEALTH INSURANCE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

BACKGROUND

The healthcare industry has been and continues to be plagued by significant financial challenges. Costs to providers are surging and sustaining operations has become a struggle for hospitals and other patient care centers. Many hospital systems have gone bankrupt over the last several years. Others, facing financial ruin, have been bought up by private equity companies. These consolidations leave patients with fewer healthcare options. Commercial health reimbursements comprise the majority of healthcare providers’ revenue. Providers therefore depend upon competition among commercial health insurers to ensure that commercial insurance reimbursement rates are sufficient to cover costs and preserve patient access to healthcare across the United States.

On behalf of out-of-network healthcare providers nationwide, Lockridge Grindal Nauen has filed a lawsuit alleging that beginning in or around July 2017, the reimbursements that providers nationwide have received for the out-of-network services they provided have been illegally suppressed as a result of a conspiracy between the commercial health insurance companies in the United States and MultiPlan, a claims “repricing” service. The lawsuit alleges a price-fixing conspiracy between these companies, through which these defendants perversely reap enormous profits off of the spread between what a provider claims for a given medical service and what the insurer actually pays.

All major commercial health insurers in the United States, and many smaller ones, have joined with MultiPlan to form a cartel dedicated to depriving healthcare providers of fair reimbursement for out-of-network services. This includes many well-known insurers, such as UnitedHealth, Cigna, Humana, Aetna, Centene, and Elevance (which includes many Blue Cross and Blue Shield associations). The complaint alleges that these insurers have taken an active role in perpetuating the anticompetitive scheme.

The cartel members agree on the method of pricing out-of-network claims. They agree to share their competitively sensitive reimbursement data to help drive the fake “repricing” algorithm through which MultiPlan and the insurers fix reimbursement prices. They work with MultiPlan to select “overrides” for that algorithm and agree to allow MultiPlan to align the “override” values across members of the cartel. The insurers agree to pay healthcare providers what MultiPlan tells them to pay, and not to undercut other cartel members with competitive pricing. They agree to condition payment on a provider’s agreement not to bill the patient for the proportion of the claim the insurer does not pay, a critical step in keeping the existence of the cartel secret.

In a competitive market, none of this would happen. If the market were competitive, each health insurer would fiercely guard its reimbursement data as competitively sensitive information, and would compete with other insurers by paying healthcare providers fairly for out-of-network healthcare services rendered, so that those physicians would provide healthcare when the insurers’ members need it.

MultiPlan and the insurance companies accomplished a reimbursement suppression scheme together that none could accomplish on their own. These defendants each collected from insurance-plan sponsors (usually employers) a percentage of the “spread,” or the difference between what a healthcare provider charges and what the insurer ultimately pays—as a fee for each claim suppressed, and then split that fee between themselves.

Out-of-network healthcare providers are harmed by this misconduct. The complaint alleges that the cartel has driven down the payments healthcare providers receive by between 61% and 81%, when compared with a transparent, accurate, and fair benchmark published by a non-profit formed for the express purpose of combatting price-fixing in the market for out-of-network medical claim reimbursements.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 6, 2024, and is captioned Live Well Chiropractic PLLC v. MultiPlan, Inc., et al., No. 1:24cv03680. The defendants are MultiPlan, Inc., MultiPlan Corp., Viant, Inc., Viant Payment Systems, Inc., National Care Network, LP, National Care Network, LLC, UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Aetna, Inc., Elevance Health, Inc., Centene Corp., Cigna Group, Health Care Service Corp., Humana Inc., Kaiser Permanente LLC, Blue Shield of California, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Mutual Insurance Co., and Health Alliance Medical Plans, Inc.


ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

Complaint


CONTACT US

Are you a healthcare provider that provided out-of-network medical services since July 2017?

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please fill out the form below or contact Brian Clark, Steve Teti, or Kristie LaSalle at bdclark@locklaw.com, sjteti@locklaw.com, kalasalle@locklaw.com or at 612-339-6900.

PayPal Antitrust Litigation

BACKGROUND

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP has been appointed as co-lead counsel in a lawsuit the Firm has filed on behalf of consumers against PayPal concerning anticompetitive agreements between PayPal and all eCommerce merchants that accept PayPal as a method of payment. The lawsuit alleges that PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules have caused consumers to pay more than they ordinarily would have for their eCommerce transactions, in violation of federal antitrust and other laws. 

PayPal is the dominant eCommerce payments platform in the United States. More than 400 million consumers have PayPal accounts, including 75% of all Americans. Nearly 1 million eCommerce websites in the United States accept PayPal as a means of payment. Every day, PayPal processes 41 million transactions.  

To accept PayPal, eCommerce merchants in the United States enter form contracts with PayPal that, since no later than 2010, strictly prohibit offering price discounts when consumers use non-PayPal means of payment. Thus, while PayPal charges merchants the highest transaction fees in the industry (over 3.5% per eCommerce transaction), PayPal-accepting merchants have agreed by contract that they will not use price incentives to steer consumers away from PayPal to more cost-effective payment solutions. By way of example, if a PayPal-accepting merchant sells an iPhone 11s for $288.00 when a consumer pays with PayPal, that merchant cannot offer even one penny less than $288.00 to consumers who select a more cost-effective payment method to complete the same transaction. 

Since at least 2017, PayPal’s merchant agreements also prohibit non-price forms of steering consumers toward rival payment platforms. Under such agreements, eCommerce merchants can neither express any preference for other payment options, nor prioritize them in their online storefronts or checkout flows. Merchants must present PayPal as an entirely neutral option when, in fact, the economic consequences of clicking PayPal at checkout are significant and adverse. 

These restraints are known as “Anti-Steering Rules,” and PayPal is alleged to have violated various antitrust and other laws by their imposition thereof. Without these Anti-Steering Rules, merchants could competitively price transactions by the cost of the selected payments platform, allowing consumers to secure discounts at checkout. The Anti-Steering Rules, however, preclude any such discounts, effectively fixing a price floor for millions of products that eCommerce consumers can obtain with payment methods other than PayPal. 

The result is higher merchant transaction fees across the industry, but it is ultimately everyday eCommerce consumers who pay the price. Beyond PayPal’s market dominance, one of the reasons merchants routinely accept PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules is that, while these rules increase merchants’ transaction fees, such fees are baked into the prices merchants charge consumers. In other words, consumers pay the cost of PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules, not merchants. 

Higher prices are not the only consumer injury resulting from PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules, which also prevent merchants from conveying the pricing information needed for consumers to make a free and informed choice between payment alternatives. That PayPal cannot nudge its customers away from PayPal by conveying simple economic facts – for example, that PayPal charges industry-high fees that inflate prices – also fundamentally distorts competition. 

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of consumers nationwide who transacted with the nearly one million U.S. eCommerce merchants who have agreed to PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules. The lawsuit asserts claims under the federal Sherman Act, as well as state competition laws. 

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 5, 2023, and is captioned Sabol v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:23-cv-5100. 

Are you a Class member? 

If you are a consumer who made online eCommerce transactions and are interested in learning more about this lawsuit, please contact us. 

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brian Clark or Steve Teti at (bdclark@locklaw.com), (sjteti@locklaw.com), or at 612-339-6900.

CASE DOCUMENTS

  1. Complaint
  2. Leadership Order

Protected: Tires Antitrust Litigation

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Southwest Dairy Farmer Antitrust Litigation

Background

Dairy cooperatives like DFA and Select play a vital role in the Southwest dairy industry, as the overwhelming majority of dairy farmers are members of, and market their milk through, these cooperatives. The cooperatives then market the milk to be processed and bottled for fluid or other uses, such as in cheese, yogurt, ice cream, and milk powder.

Beginning in at least January 2015, the prices that Southwestern dairy farmers received for the raw Grade A milk they produced have been remarkably low, often below the farmers’ costs to produce the milk. The lawsuit alleges that DFA and Select began coordinating after the rates paid to Southwestern dairy farmers reached high prices in 2014. Among other things the farmers allege, beginning in at least January 2015, DFA and Select Milk shared pricing information and coordinated pricing and price-related decisions to drive down the price paid to Southwestern farmers for the milk they produced. These defendants capitalized on perceived oversupply, foreign milk production, and decreased fluid milk consumption to offer artificially low prices to Southwestern dairy farmers. The lawsuit alleges that DFA and Select pay their farmers nearly identical rates for the milk they produce each month, and otherwise limit the negotiating power and pricing options for dairy farmers.

The lawsuit alleges that the effect of DFA and Select’s conspiracy “has been devastating to many dairy farmers,” which “has led numerous farmers to borrow from generations of equity built up in their land, relying on that equity to pay themselves and keep their farms in operation. Many Southwestern dairy farmers have been forced to declare bankruptcy and/or completely closed their operations.”

The lawsuit alleges that the dairy industry is particularly susceptible to antitrust conspiracies due to high consolidation within the industry, incredibly complicated price formulas, and a lack of price transparency. As the dominant players, holding the overwhelming majority of market share for Southwest milk production, DFA and Select dictate the prices offered to Southwestern dairy farmers.

On March 11, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Honorable Margaret I. Strickland found that Plaintiffs “plausibly allege[] a continuing conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws,” “sufficiently plead each part of their horizontal price-fixing claim,” and “plausibly allege parallel conduct alongside other factors that when taken together ‘tend to exclude the possibility of independent action.’” In summary, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that “(1) Defendants participated in concerted actions that (2) resulted in depressed prices sufficient to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on April 4, 2022, and is captioned Othart Dairy Farms, LLC, Pareo Farm, Inc., Pareo Farm II, Inc., Desertland Dairy, LLC, Del Oro Dairy, LLC, Bright Star Dairy, LLC, and Sunset Dairy, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Select Milk Producers, Inc., and Greater Southwest Agency, 22-cv-00251-MIS-DLM.

Are you a Southwestern dairy farmer?
If you are or were a dairy farmer located in New Mexico, Texas, southwestern Kansas, eastern Arizona, or the Oklahoma panhandle since 2015, please contact us.

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brian Clark or Steve Teti at bdclark@locklaw.com, sjteti@locklaw.com or at 612-339-6900.

ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

Dairy Farms 22-cv-00251 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
2022-04-04 [1] Othart Dairy Farms, LLC et al v. Dairy Farmers Of America, Inc. et al Complaint
Top U.S. Dairy Co-Op Hit With Antitrust Lawsuit Over Farmer Pay
Dairy Farmers File Class Action against Southwest Dairy Cooperatives Alleging Violations of Sherman Act
Dairy producers file class action complaint in Southwest
New Mexico dairy farmers allege price fixing in antitrust suit against cooperatives
Dairy collectives must face farmers’ milk price-fixing lawsuit, US judge rules

Shale Oil Antitrust Litigation

Background

Gasoline and diesel fuel prices have been at historically high prices for the last several years. Businesses nationwide have been feeling the effects, paying more at the pump to fuel the vehicles they rely upon for their livelihoods. Running a business, especially one that depends on highly cost-variable inputs like fuel, is difficult and risky under the best of circumstances.

On behalf of businesses nationwide, Lockridge Grindal Nauen has filed a lawsuit alleging that beginning in or around January 2021, the prices that businesses nationwide have paid for gasoline and diesel fuel have been artificially inflated as a result of a conspiracy between the largest shale oil producers in the United States. The lawsuit alleges a conspiracy not only between those producers, but also with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, commonly referred to as OPEC.

Shale oil is a high-quality crude oil found between layers of shale rock, impermeable mudstone, or siltstone. It can be extracted, refined, and used to produce, among other things, gasoline and diesel fuel. Shale oil is produced by fracturing the rock formations that contain the layers of oil in a process known as hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as “fracking.” Crude oil is the main input into gasoline and diesel fuel, and approximately 90% of variation in the price of these fuels is directly related to the price of crude oil.

The lawsuit alleges that OPEC initially declared a “price war” on the large American shale oil producers, by attempting to drive oil prices low enough so as to render American fracking economically unviable. After those efforts failed, OPEC and those producers slowly began to collude in an effort to drive oil prices higher for all involved in the conspiracy. By 2018, the large American producers bragged about having “a seat at the table on pricing” with OPEC. In early 2020, the oil market experienced the shock and unprecedented price declines brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. By early 2021, demand for gasoline and diesel fuel was surging. Defendants, the large American shale producers, should have seized the opportunity to ramp up production to take advantage of increasingly high prices. Yet against their own economic self-interest, those producers preached “discipline” and limited their production.

The lawsuit alleges that they did so in furtherance of their conspiracy, the result of which was to drive up gasoline and diesel fuel prices for purchasers including businesses. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on January 24, 2024, and is captioned These Paws Were Made for Walkin’ LLC v. Permian Resources Corp., et al., No. 2:24-cv-00164. The defendants are Permian Resources Corp. (f/k/a Centennial Resource Development, Inc., Chesapeake Energy Corp., Continental Resources Inc., Diamondback Energy, Inc., EOG Resources, Inc., Hess Corp., Occidental Petroleum Corp., and Pioneer Natural Resources Co.

Do you own a business that purchased gasoline or diesel fuel since 2021?

If you own a business that purchased gasoline or diesel fuel since 2021, please contact us.

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brian Clark or Steve Teti at bdclark@locklaw.com, sjteti@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.


ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

2024-01-24 These Paws Were Made for Walkin’ LLC v. Permian Resources Corp., Centennial Resource Development, Inc. et al Complaint

Fragrance Antitrust Litigation

SUMMARY

In June 2023, Lockridge Grindal Nauen filed an antitrust class action on behalf of our clients and a proposed class alleging that the world’s largest fragrance manufacturers colluded to entered into an unlawful agreement to increased prices charged to Plaintiff and the Proposed Class for Fragrances. Here, Fragrances are defined as chemical or aroma compounds that are added to consumer goods to impart a pleasant order to the finished product and deliver a pleasant experience to the end user.

Background

The fragrance producers named as defendants in this case are Firmenich SA, Firmenich Incorporated, Agilex Flavors & Fragrance, Inc., Givaudan SA, Givaudan Fragrances Corporation, Givaudan Roure (United States) Inc., Ungerer &Company, Inc., Custom Essence Incorporated, and International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (“IFF”), Symrise AG, and Symrise Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that beginning no later than 2018, the defendant Fragrance producers secretly coordinated with each other on their pricing policy for customers, allocated certain customers, and coordinated supply restraints for Fragrances with the purpose and effect of increasing prices charged to Plaintiff and the Proposed Class for Fragrances.

Were you affected by the alleged Fragrance conspiracy?


If you purchased Fragrance between 2018 forward from any of the above companies or their subsidiaries, you may have overpaid.

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brian Clark or Simeon Morbey at (bdclark@locklaw.com), (samorbey@locklaw.com), or at 612-339-6900.

ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

  1. Complaint

IN RE SYNGENTA LITIGATION PLAINTIFFS’ LIAISON

ABOUT

Minnesota State Court Consolidated Actions
Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, MN

Court File 27-CV-153785
Judge: The Honorable Thomas M. Sipkins

A number of cases that allege Syngenta negligently sold genetically modified corn seeds, Viptera® and Duracade®, that contains the trait MIR-162 have been filed in Minnesota state courts and consolidated before Judge Thomas Sipkins in Hennepin County District Court.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. was appointed Liaison Counsel by the Court and, in that role, is making pertinent documents and pleadings available to the public as directed by the Court.

CONTACT

Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel
Robert K. Shelquist
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
rkshelquist@locklaw.com

ORDERS

11-14-2016
Order Designating Class Certification Order Public

11-03-2016
Order Certifying Class

11-03-2016
Order (Regarding Judgment on the Pleadings Briefing Schedule)

10-21-2016
Order (Regarding Punitive Damages Briefing Schedule)

10-19-2016
Scheduling Order No. 4

09-06-2016
Order (Regarding Filing Third-Party Complaint)

08-05-2016
Order Establishing Common Benefit Rules

08-01-2016
Scheduling Order No. 3

07-21-2016
Order Regarding Bellwether Trial Plaintiff Selection and Ranking

07-12-2016
Order (Regarding Plaintiff Fact Sheets and Defendant Fact Sheets)

06-14-2016
Order (Replacing Bellwether Plaintiff)

05-03-2016
Order Regarding the Process for Substitution of Successors of Deceased Plaintiffs

04-13-2016
Order (Replacing Bellwether Plaintiff)

04-13-2016
Order (Replacing Bellwether Plaintiff)

04-07-2016
Order (Regarding Dismissal-denied in part; granted in part)

03-24-2016
Order (Replacing Bellwether Plaintiffs)

03-23-2016
Order Appointing Special Master for Settlement

03-01-2016
Order (Replacing Bellwether Plaintiffs)

02-25-2016
Order Regarding Special Master Recommendations Due 03-11-16

12-22-2015
Order Regarding Bellwether Selection

12-05-2015
Common Benefit Order

11-04-2015
Scheduling Order No. 2

11-04-2015
Coordination Order

10-30-2015
Order Regarding the Process for the Dismissal of Cases Filed

10-30-2015
Order Approving Notices to Conform

10-30-2015
Preservation Order

10-30-2015
Order Regarding Page Limits on Briefing

10-30-2015
Bellwether Selection Order

10-06-2015
Order for Status Conference

09-25-2015
ESI Protocol

09-25-2015
Scheduling Order No. 1

09-25-2015
Stipulated Protective Order

09-15-2015
Order for Status Conference (setting for September 25, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.)

08-27-2015
Order Appointing Special Master

08-06-2015
Order Appointing Lead Counsel

07-07-2015
Order to Change Venue (Consolidation of Cases to Hennepin Cty)

07-07-2015
Pretrial Order #1

OTHER FILINGS

12-01-2016
Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend to Add Punitive Damages

11-23-2016
Syngenta’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Rule 12.03 Motion for Partial judgment on the Pleadings

11-23-2016
Syngenta’s Notice of Motion and Rule 12.03 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings

06-20-2016
Syngenta’s ANSWER and Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Minnesota Class Action Master Complaint for Producers

06-20-2016
Syngenta’s ANSWER and Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Master Complaint (Non-Class)

05-06-2016
SECOND AMENDED MINNESOTA CLASS ACTION MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCERS

05-06-2016
SECOND AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCERS AND NON-PRODUCERS (Non-Class)

12-22-2015
Syngenta’s Second Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss

12-22-2015
Syngenta’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

12-15-2015
Defendants’ Reply Regarding Rolling Production of Plaintiff Fact Sheets

12-11-2015
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Syngenta’s Motion for 50,000 Plaintiff Fact Sheets

12-07-2015
AMENDED Notice of Motion for Rolling Production of PFS

12-01-2015
Syngenta Affidavit re Rolling Production of PFS

12-01-2015
Syngenta Memo re Rolling Production of PFS

12-01-2015
Syngenta Notice of Motion for Rolling Production of PFS

12-01-2015
Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Syngenta’s Motion to Dismiss

12-01-2015
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

11-11-2015
Letter Regarding Interim Status Conferences

11-09-2015
Syngenta’s Notice of Motion to Dismiss (hearing set for January 8, 2016 at 9:00 am)

11-09-2015
Syngenta’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to DIsmiss

11-06-2015
First Amended Minnesota Class Action Master Complaint

11-05-2015
FIRST AMENDED MASTER COMPLAINT for Producers and Non-Producers (Non-Class)

10-29-2015
Proposed Common Benefit Order

10-29-2015
Joint Proposal

10-28-2015
Syngenta’s Brief in Support of its Proposed Coordination Order

10-28-2015
Brief Supporting Plaintiffs’ Proposed Coordination Order

10-28-2015
Proposed Coordination Order

10-27-2015
Proposed Agenda for October 30, 2015 Status Conference

10-23-2015
Proposed Notices to Conform

10-23-2015
Joint Proposal (re Preservation and Bellwether Selection)

10-02-2015
Master Complaint for Producers And Non-Producers (Non-Class)

10-02-2015
Minnesota Class Action Master Complaint for Producers and Non-Producers

09-23-2015
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Agenda for September 25, 2015 Status Conference

09-23-2015
Defendants’ Initial Response to Plaintiffs’ Proposals in Anticipation of September 25, 2015 Status Hearing

09-23-2015
Proposed Agenda for September 25, 2015 Status Conference

09-04-2015
Joint Proposal with exhibits

DISCOVERY

12-28-2015
Syngenta’s First Set of Requests for Production to Bellwether Plaintiffs (Non-Producers)

12-24-2015
Syngenta’s Cross-Notice of Depositions of MDL Producer Plaintiffs in all Actions

12-23-2015
Syngenta’s First Set of Requests for Production to Bellwether Plaintiffs (Producers)

LEADERSHIP

PLAINTIFFS’ CO-LEAD COUNSEL

Lewis A. Remele Jr.
BASSFORD REMELE PA
33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3800
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone: (612) 333-3000
Email: lremele@bassford.com

Francisco Guerra IV
WATTS GUERRA LLP
Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone: (210) 447-0500
Email: fguerra@wattsguerra.com

PLAINTIFFS’ CO-LEAD INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL

William R. Sieben
SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN PA
5120 IDS Center
80 South Eight Street, Suite 5120
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone: (612) 377-7777
Email: bsieben@schwebel.com

Daniel E. Gustafson
GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

PLAINTIFFS’ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Lewis A. Remele Jr.
BASSFORD REMELE PA
33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3800
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone: (612) 333-3000
Email: lremele@bassford.com

William R. Sieben
SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN PA
5120 IDS Center
80 South Eight Street, Suite 5120
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone: (612) 377-7777
Email: bsieben@schwebel.com

Robert K. Shelquist
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

Will Kemp
KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD, LLP
Wells Fargo Tower
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
17th Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Phone: (702) 385-6000
Email: wkemp6000@gmail.com

Richard M. Paul III
PAUL McINNES LLP
601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Phone: (816) 984-8100
Email: paul@paulmcinnes.com

Francisco Guerra IV
WATTS GUERRA LLP
Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone: (210) 447-0500
Email: fguerra@wattsguerra.com

Daniel E. Gustafson
GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 333-8844
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

Clayton A. Clark
CLARK, LOVE & HUTSON
440 Louisiana Street
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 7571400
Email: cclark@triallawfirm.com

Paul Byrd
PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC
415 N. McKinley Street
Suite 210
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: (501) 420-3050
Email: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

Tyler W. Hudson
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
4740 Grand Avenue
Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1177
Email: thudson@wcllp.com

BABY FOOD LITIGATION (612) 339-6900

SIGNIFICANT COURT DOCUMENTS

2021-03-11

2021-03-11-Gulkarov-Consolidated-Complaint-v-Plum

2021-02-22

2021-02-22-Willoughby-v-Hain-Celestial-Complaint

2021-02-19

2021-02-11-Peek-v-Beech-Nut-Complaint-NY

2021-02-08

2021-02-08-Gerber-Complaint

PET FOOD LITIGATION (612) 339-6900

SIGNIFICANT COURT DOCUMENTS

2020-05-01
Champion Pet Foods Amended Complaint – Iowa

2020-04-24
Champion Pet Foods Amended Complaint – New York

2020-04-15
Champion Pet Foods Second Amended Complaint – Minnesota

2020-03-20
Champion Pet Foods Second Amended Complaint – Michigan

2019-10-04
Gravy Train Order regarding Motion to Dismiss

2019-05-29
Schwegmann v Hill’s Pet Nutrition Amended Complaint – KS

2019-04-09
Taste of the Wild Third Amended Complaint

2019-03-21
Taste of the Wild – Order regarding Motion to Dismiss

2019-02-28
Taste of the Wild Complaint – IL

2019-02-26
Hall v Hill’s Pet Nutrition Complaint – CA

2019-02-14
Champion First Amended Complaint – Illinois (cat food)

2019-02-06
Champion Pet Foods – Second Amended Complaint Illinois

2018-11-14
Champion Pet Foods Amended Complaint – Washington

2018-11-12
Champion Pet Food Amended Complaint – Illinois

2018-10-26
Champion Pet Foods Complaint – Washington

2018-10-19
Champion Pet Foods Complaint – Michigan

2018-10-18
Taste of the Wild Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Gros…

2018-10-17
Champion Pet Foods Complaint – MN State Court

2018-10-16
Champion Pet Foods Complaint – New York

2018-10-16
Champion Pet Foods Complaint – Illinois

2018-09-05
Taste of the Wild AMENDED Complaint (Grossman and Classick v …

2018-08-28
Taste of the Wild Complaint (Grossman v Schell & Lampeter, In…

2018-07-02
Wellness Second Amended Complaint Concerning Heavy Metals and…

2018-06-22
Champion Pet Foods Complaint regarding Cat Food

2018-06-14
Big Heart Pet Brands Amended Consolidated Complaint

2018-05-01
Big Heart Pet Brands Master Consolidated Complaint

2018-03-16
Gravy Train Complaint concerning euthanasia drugs (Williamson, et al. v Big Heart Pet Brands)

2018-03-07
Gravy Train Complaint concerning euthanasia drugs (Sebastiano v Big Heart Pet Brands)

2018-02-09
Gravy Train Complaint concerning euthanasia drugs (Sturm v Big Heart Pet Brands)

2018-02-09
Gravy Train Complaint concerning euthanasia drugs (Mullins v Big Heart Pet Brands)

2018-01-18
Wellness Dog Food Order Granting In Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Daniel Zeiger et al. v WellPetLLC, et al.)

2017-11-20
Nutrish Dog Food Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Christina Grimm v APN Inc., et al.)

2017-10-26
Wellness First Amended Complaint Concerning Heavy Metals and BPA Contaminants (Daniel Zeigler et al. v. WellPet LLC, et al.)

2017-10-02
Nutrish Second Amended Complaint Concerning Misleading Natural Labeling (Grimm v. APN, Inc. et al.)

2017-08-31
Nutrish Dog Food Order Denying Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Christina Grimm v APN Inc., et al.)