CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO MELISSA LATVALA and MYKOL LEWIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Plaintiffs, TEVA PHARMACUETICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. an Israel Business Entity and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. a Delaware Corporation and IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. a Delaware Corporation and ANCHEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a California Corporation and JOHN DOES names and address currently unknown Defendants. Case No. 2:09-cv-795 Judge CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Now come Plaintiffs Melissa Latvala and Mykol Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through counsel, and for their complaint state and allege as follows:

2 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 1. This is a class action for injunctive relief and restitution against Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries and related entities for their fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations and omissions concerning their product Budeprion XL. Budeprion XL is a generic drug used for the treatment of depressive symptoms. 2. Defendants represent that Budeprion XL is equivalent, in all respects, to a prescription product named Wellbutrin XL. Indeed, on the Teva website, located at Teva expressly states that Budeprion XL is the exact equivalent of Wellbutrin XL. It is not, in several important respects. 3. It is scientifically proven that Budeprion XL contains an inferior delivery mechanism to that contained in Wellbutrin XL. That inferior delivery mechanism results in a much more rapid, and potentially harmful, release of Budeprion XL s active ingredient to enduse consumers. The result is that Budeprion XL is less effective in treating depression, and is much more likely to cause certain dangerous side effects, compared to Wellbutrin XL. 4. Plaintiff thus respectfully asks the Court: (a enjoin and restrain Defendants from the wrongful acts and practices described herein; (b award restitution in the amount that was paid for the Plaintiff s prescriptions, plus interest; (c order disgorgement relief as appropriate; and (d award all other costs, including attorneys fees, available under state law. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(d. The case is filed as a class action, the matter in controversy exceeds the value of $5,000,000 exclusive of costs and interest, and more than two-thirds of the members of the proposed class are citizens of a state different than each of the Defendants home states. 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(c because Defendants regularly transact business and are subject to personal jurisdiction in the state of Ohio. 2

3 7. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because Defendants are foreign entities authorized to do business in Ohio, have sufficient minimum contacts with Ohio, and/or have otherwise intentionally availed themselves of the Ohio market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this District Court for the Southern District of Ohio consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. To wit, Defendants regularly transact business in Ohio, contract to supply services or things in Ohio, and/or caused injury or damage in Ohio through an act of omission outside of the state. 8. Furthermore, Defendants have purposely availed themselves of the benefits and protection of the laws within the state of Ohio and within the Southern District of Ohio, having sufficient contacts such that the exercise of jurisdiction would be consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. PARTIES 9. Plaintiff Melissa Latvala is a resident of Hilliard, Ohio. She suffers from depressive symptoms and utilized Budeprion XL (300mg to treat her depressive symptoms beginning in June Plaintiff Mykol Lewis is a resident of Kent, Ohio. She suffers from depressive symptoms and utilized Budeprion XL (150mg from to treat her depressive symptoms from November 2008 to January She utilized Budeprion XL (300mg beginning in January Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. ( TPI is a company incorporated and headquartered in the state of Israel. TPI on its own and/or through its subsidiaries regularly conducts business within the state of Ohio and derives substantial revenues from goods consumed in Ohio. 12. Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ( TVU is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 1090 Horsham Road, North Wales, Pennsylvania, and it s 3

4 a wholly owned subsidiary of TPI. TVU regularly conducts business within the state of Ohio and derives substantial revenues from goods consumes in Ohio. 13. (TPI and TVU are referred to together as Teva. At all times relevant to this Complaint, each Teva Defendant acted as the agent of each other Defendant, within the course and scope of such agency, regarding the acts and omissions alleged. 14. Defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. ( Impax is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Huntwood Avenue, Hayward, California. Impax regularly conducts business within the state of Ohio and derives substantial revenues from goods consumed in Ohio. 15. Defendant Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( Anchen is a California corporation with its principal place of business at 9601 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, California. Anchen regularly conducts business within the state of Ohio and derives substantial revenues from goods consumed in Ohio. 16. The John Doe Defendants are other business entities, including predecessors, successors, agent, and/or affiliates, who may be liable for the acts or omissions complained of in the Counts of this complaint. The names, addresses, and potential liabilities of these John Doe Defendants are currently unknown, despite Plaintiff s reasonable efforts to ascertain them. As discovery reveals the identities of the John Doe Defendants, Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this complaint to name them, and will serve them according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. 17. Defendants are in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling, and/or otherwise placing Budeprion XL in the stream of commerce. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 18. Bupropion hydorchloride ( Bupropion is an antidepressant that acts as a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor. 4

5 19. One of the major dangers associated with Bupropion is the increased risk of seizures. 20. While still under patent, Bupropion was manufactures and/or distributed by GlaxoSmithKline Corporation ( GSK under the trade name Wellbutrin. 21. In 2003, GSK introduced a once-a-day sustained release formulation of Bupropion under the trade name Wellbutrin XL. 22. Wellbutrin XL was and is prescribed for conditions including depression, major depressive disorder, seasonal affective disorder, and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor ( SSRI -induced sexual dysfunction. 23. In late 2006, Defendants manufactured, distributed, licensed, sold and/or have enjoyed profit sharing agreement(s for the sale of a generic version of Wellbutrin XL with the trade name Budeprion XL throughout the United States, including Ohio. 24. Defendants utilized a different tablet release technology than did GSK. Specifically, GSK s Wellbutrin XL employs a membrane-based drug delivery technology while Defendants Budeprion XL relies on an erodible tablet technology. 25. Defendants manufactured, distributed, marketed, have profit-sharing agreements, and/or sold Budeprion XL in both the 150mg and 300mg formulations despite the fact that they have not done any significant research on Budeprion XL 300mg, specifically, whether it is truly equivalent to Wellbutrin XL 300mg. 26. Studies reveal that Budeprion XL releases more than four times as much bupropion hydrochloride in the first two hours after ingestion when compared with WellbutrinXL or non-budeprion generic alternatives, dramatically affecting the extended release effect that is the goal of the extended release version of Wellbutrin. Patients on Budeprion XL are therefore exposed to greater risks than those on Wellbutrin XL. 27. The time it takes after one ingests a pill to reach the point where the active ingredient is at the highest concentration in the bloodstream is called the time to peak plasma 5

6 concentration ( Tmax. At least as early as 2006, Defendants had studied and concluded (or were aware of such studies proving that the Tmax for Budeprion XL was 2 hours, while the Tmax of Wellbutrin was 5 hours. 28. Despite this evidence, Defendants continue to misrepresent that the Tmax of Budeprion XL is the same as that of Wellbutrin XL. 29. Defendants also know of the potential for serious complications that this misrepresentation will cause. 30. Shortly after Budeprion XL s introduction into the marketplace, there were widespread reports of individuals suffering symptoms which they had not previously suffered on either Wellbutrin XL or the non-budeprion general alternatives to Wellbutrin XL; including, but not limited to, severe depression, panic attacks, mood swings, anxiety, nausea, insomnia, suicidal tendencies, and seizures. Many other patients reported a loss of depressive effect with Budeprion XL. 31. Defendants are and have been aware that Budeprion XL is less effective than Wellbutrin XL and/or non-budeprion XL generic alternatives, and posed greater risks of adverse side effects. 32. By the end of 2007, approximately 400,000 prescriptions per month were being dispensed for Budeprion XL in the United States, or 40% of prescriptions of all XL versions of Bupropion. 33. Defendants failed to disclose that Budeprion XL had a different release formula resulting in different release rates than Wellbutrin XL. 34. Defendants also failed to disclose that the varying release rate decreased the likelihood of the medication s effectiveness. 35. Defendants further failed to disclose the risks involved with Budeprion XL as opposed to Wellbutrin XL or other non-budeprion XL generic alternatives. 6

7 36. Defendants continue to represent to Plaintiffs, Class members, and the public that Wellbutrin XL and Budeprion XL were and are the same medication, which is a false representation. 37. All of the fraudulent and/or negligent conduct by Defendants alleged herein occurred at the direction, control, and supervision of officers, directors, employees and/or agents of Defendants. 38. But for Defendants affirmative misrepresentations and failure to disclose material facts, Plaintiffs and the Class members would not have purchased and/or used Budeprion XL. 39. Plaintiffs and the Class members would not have purchased and/or used Budeprion XL had they known of its inherent defects, decreased likelihood of effectiveness, and increased potential for adverse side effects. As such, Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered injuries in fact. PLAINTIFF LATVALA S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 40. Melissa Latvala was diagnosed with depression years ago and was prescribed 300mg Wellbutrin XL in September Latvala took the 300mg Wellbutrin XL formulation, which successfully treated her depression with no adverse side effects. 42. Sometime thereafter, Latvala s pharmacy began filling her prescription with Budeprion XL. 43. As a result of taking Budeprion XL, Latavala s depressive symptoms have returned, and she suffered other side effects, including headaches, agitation, nervousness, dizziness, irritability, decreased memory, sweating, insomnia, dry mouth, palpitation, and flushing. 7

8 44. For the past several months, she has had feelings of being drugged during the day and crashing in the early afternoon and has a terrible lack of energy. She wakes up feeling washed out and exhausted. 45. She has endured many doctor appointments, MRIs, and a spinal tap. In the end, however, she consulted with her pharmacist, who reported other complaints about Budeprion XL and filled her prescription with Wellbutrin XL. 46. The adverse effects Latvala suffered have disappeared now that she is no longer taking Budeprion XL. PLAINTIFF LEWIS FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 47. Mykol Lewis was diagnosed with depression years ago and was prescribed 150mg of Bupropion in September Lewis pharmacy filled her prescription with Budeprion XL. 49. In January 2009, Lewis prescription was increased to 300mg, and again was filled with Budeprion XL. 50. As a result of taking Budeprion XL, Lewis depressive symptoms returned, and she suffered other side effects, including dizzy spells and major anxiety attacks requiring hospitalization. Class Definition CLASS ALLEGATIONS 51. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(B(2 and (B(3, defined as follows: All Ohio residents that purchased or paid for (in whole or in part bupropion hydrochloride under the trade name Budeprion XL. 52. Excluded from the definition of the Class are Defendants, any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Defendants, as well as its officers, directors, employees (or former employees, and any judicial officer who may preside over this case. 8

9 53. This definition may be further defined or amended by additional pleadings, evidentiary hearings, a class certification hearing, and orders of this Court. 54. Plaintiffs expressly disclaim any intent to seek in this suit any recovery for personal injuries that have been suffered by any Class Member. However, Plaintiffs and Class Members are seeking recovery for reimbursement of funds expended to purchase Budeprion XL. Numerosity 55. The Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although the precise number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and can be ascertained only through appropriate discovery. Plaintiffs have reasonable grounds to believe that thousands of Ohio residents used and/or paid for Budeprion XL. Commonality and Typicality 56. This suit poses questions of law and/or fact common to and affecting the rights of all Class Members. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the Class Members claims and the harm suffered by Plaintiffs and all other Class Members arises from and was caused by the same conduct of Defendants. Specifically, the design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of Budeprion XL without proper information regarding the defective release rate and associated risks thereof. Moreover, Defendants deceitful misrepresentations that Budeprion XL equated to Wellbutrin XL has affected the Class Members in a uniform way. Members of the Class have sustained damages as a direct result of the wrongful conduct described in this Complaint because they each purchased or paid for a product that they would not have purchased but for Defendants wrongful conduct. Adequacy of Representation 57. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class Members and have retained competent counsel who together intend to diligently and vigorously prosecute the claims alleged in this case. 9

10 Class Certification 58. The Class is defined objectively and in terms of ascertainable criteria. 59. Class certification under Rule 23(B(2 is proper because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole appropriate. 60. Class certification is also proper under Rule 23(B(3 because question(s of law and/or fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Predominance of Common Questions 61. Common questions of law and/or fact predominate for all Class Members over any issues that may be particular to any individual Class Member. The questiosn of law and fact common to the Class include, but are not limited to: a. Whether Defendants fraudulently (or, in the alternative, negligently misrepresented that Budeprion XL was an identical product to Wellbutrin XL, different in name only, when the two products actually differ remarkably in terms of their delivery mechanisms and time to peak plasma concentration; b. Whether Defendants fraudulently (or, in the alternative, negligently concealed the fact that Budeprion XL and Wellbutrin XL contained different mechanisms which affected the extended release aspect of the drug; c. Whether Defendants fraudulently (or, in the alternative, negligently misrepresented that Budeprion XL carried the same level of risk as Wellbutrin XL or non-budeprion XL generics; 10

11 d. Whether Defendants fraudulently (or, in the alternative, negligently concealed the fact that Budeprion XL was more risky than Wellbutrin XL or non-budeprion XL generics; e. Whether Defendants manufactured, distribued, marketed, or sold Budeprion XL; f. Whether Budeprion XL releases Bupropion at a different rate than Wellbutrin XL or non-budeprion XL generics; and g. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained damages, and the proper measure of those damages. Superiority 62. A class action is the best method to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy between the parties in light of the fact that: a. Common questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions that may arise, such that there would be enormous economies to the Courts and the parties in litigating the common issues on a classwide basis, as opposed to a repetitive individualized basis; b. A class action is required for optimal deterrence and compensation, and for limiting the court-awarded reasonable legal expenses incurred by Class Members; c. Should individual Class Members be required to bring separate actions, courts throughout Ohio would be confronted with a multiplicity of lawsuits, thus burdening the Court system while also creating the risk of inconsistent rulings and contradictory judgments. In contrast to proceeding on a case-by-cases basis, in which inconsistent results would magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the Court system, this class action will present far fewer management difficulties, while 11

12 providing unitary adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single Court; and d. The identities of potential Class Members can be easily ascertained from Defendants books and records and/or through pharmacy records. COUNT ONE Deceptive Trade Practice 63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations in paragraphs 1-62 as if fully rewritten here and in each of the Counts of this Complaint. 64. To promote sales by encouraging substitution of Budeprion XL for Wellbutrin XL, Defendants deceived consumers and physicians by misrepresenting that the time to peak plasma concentration for Budeprion XL was equal to that of Wellbutrin XL, even though Defendants knew this to be false. 65. Furthermore, Defendants made and continue to deceive the Class, their physicians, and the public on Teva websites, claiming their generic products are identical to their brand name counterparts in both the active ingredient and drug delivery mechanism, including (but not limited to: a. Defendants provide product information for their generic formulations of extended release Bupropion with the subheading Brand Name: Wellbutrin XL, implying that the two pills are in all significant respects identical. 1 b. Teva s statement that approved generic products such as Budeprion XL must work the same as the brand-name product, when in fact Teva was well aware that budeprion XL did not work the same as Wellbutrin XL. 2 1 See, e.g.,

13 c. Teva s assertion that Healthcare providers and consumers can be assured that approved generic drugs meet the same rigid standards as their brand-name counterparts when, in fact, the rate and extent of 300mg Budeprion XL was not studied. 3 d. Anchen s claim that its drug development capabilities include difficult to formulate controlled release products, and specific technologies at our command including... delayed-release, extended-release, and multicomponent capsules. 4 e. Impax s claim of formulation expertise and unique drug delivery technologies. 5 f. Impax s claim of formulation expertise to develop products that reproduce the brand name product s physiological characteristics even though it was aware that Budeprion XL had a different physciological effect than Wellbutrin XL The deceptive trade practices complained of herein constitute a violation of O.R.C (A, including (but not limited to one or more of the following particulars: a. Representing that goods have characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have. O.R.C (A(7. b. Representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, though they are of another. O.R.C (A(9. 3 Id

14 c. Advertising goods with intent not to sell them as advertised. O.R.C (A( Defendants willfully engaged in the deceptive trade practices alleged herein. 68. Plaintiffs and Class Members were damaged or are likely to be damaged by Defendants commission of the deceptive trade practice(s alleged herein. 69. Under O.R.C (A-(B, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to injunctive relief based on principles of equity, and actual damages, as well as attorneys fees under and any other relief provided for by Ohio law or found just and appropriate by this Court. COUNT TWO Unfair or Deceptive Consumer Sales Practice 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations in paragraphs 1-69 as if fully rewritten here and in each of the Counts of this Complaint. 71. Defendants are suppliers and Plaintiffs and Class Members are consumers involved in a consumer transaction, as defined by O.R.C Defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act(s or practice(s in connection with a consumer transaction, as alleged in paragraphs 64 and 65, and throughout this Complaint. 73. Defendants unfair or deceptive act(s or practice(s alleged in this Complaint constitute a violation of O.R.C (A and (B, including (but not limited to one or more of the following particulars: a. That the subject of a consumer transaction has performance characteristics, uses, or benefits that it does not have. O.R.C (B(1. b. That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is of another standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model. O.R.C (B(2. 14

15 74. Defendants knowingly engaged in the unfair or deceptive consumer sales acts or practices alleged herein. 75. Plaintiffs and Class Members were damaged or are likely to be damaged by Defendants commission of the unfair or deceptive consumer sales acts or practices complained of herein. 76. Under O.R.C , Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to recover their actual economic damages and attorneys fees, obtain injunctive relief, and any other relief available in a class action, including punitive damages. COUNT THREE Fraud / Fraudulent Misrepresentation 77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations in paragraphs 1-76 as if fully rewritten here and in each of the Counts of this Complaint. 78. Defendants fraudulently misrepresented that the time to peak plasma concentration for Budeprion XL as being equal to that of Wellbutrin XL, and/or failed to disclose the differences in the two pills drug delivery mechanisms, effectiveness, and/or side effects. 79. Defendants made fraudulent market-wide misrepresentations about the releasetechnology and effectiveness of Budeprion XL, including statements detailed in paragraphs 64 and 65 and throughout this Complaint, which indicate that Budeprion XL is identical in all respects to Wellbutrin XL. 80. Defendants concealed material facts regarding the qualities of Budeprion XL as well as its differences from Wellbutrin XL. 81. Defendants knew that their representations about Budeprion XL were false, or they made such statements with utter disregard and recklessness as to whether the statements were true of false. 15

16 82. Defendants intended to mislead consumers and physicians into relying upon their misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose, and their care providers, Plaintiffs, and Class Members justifiably relied on Defendants fraudulent misrepresentations and purchased and used Budeprion XL as a generic alternative to Wellbutrin XL, identical in all respects. 83. Plaintiffs and Class Members were injured as a proximate result of this reliance. COUNT FOUR Fraudulent Concealment 84. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations in paragraphs 1-83 as if fully rewritten here and in each of the Counts of this Complaint. 85. Defendants actually concealed the true properties of Budeprion XL, including its time to peak plasma, differences in release technology from Wellbutrin XL, increased likelihood and severity of side effects, and relative ineffectiveness for treating depressive symptoms. 86. The time to peak plasma, release technology, side effects, and ineffectiveness information is material to a consumer or physicians choice to utilize Budeprion XL as a generic alternative to Wellbutrin XL. 87. Defendants knew the differences in peak plasma, release technology, incidence of side effects, and effectiveness of Budeprion XL differed from Wellbutrin, but concealed these facts, intending to induce consumers and physicians to choose Budeprion XL as a generic alternative to Wellbutrin XL or other generic alternatives. 88. Plaintiffs, their physicians, and the Class actually relied upon the conduct of the Defendants and injury proximately resulted. COUNT FIVE Negligent Misrepresentation 89. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations in paragraphs 1-88 as if fully rewritten here and in each of the Counts of this Complaint. 16

17 90. Defendants, in the course of their business and in transactions in which they had pecuniary interest, supplied false information for the guidance of others, namely buyers or Defendants Budeprion XL product like Plaintiffs and Class Members. 91. This false information, which included the representations that Budeprion XL was the same as Wellbutrin XL, especially as to its Tmax properties and effectiveness, was justifiably relied on by Plaintiffs and Class Members in deciding to purchase Defendants generic alternative to Wellbutrin XL. 92. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining truthful information or communicating truthful information about the differences between Budeprion XL and Wellbutrin XL. 93. Defendants negligent misrepresentations proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs; accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and Class Members for the pecuniary loss caused by the reliance, namely the price spent or money paid (in whole or in part for Budeprion XL. COUNT SIX Unjust Enrichment 94. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations in paragraphs 1-93 as if fully rewritten here and in each of the Counts of this Complaint. 95. Plaintiffs and Class Members conferred a monetary benefit upon Defendants when purchasing Budeprion XL. 96. Plaintiffs, Class Members, and their care providers, relied on Defendants representations that Budeprion XL was the same as Wellbutrin XL, and was merely a generic alternative. 97. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs and Class Members were relying on representations or omissions made regarding Budeprion XL in making the choice to purchase it. 17

18 98. Defendants have maintained the monetary benefit of the purchase price of the Budeprion XL. Under the circumstances alleged in this Complaint, it would be unjust to allow Defendants to maintain their ill-gotten gains, which were achieved through bad faith or fraud. 99. In equity, Defendants should disgorge these unjust profits and pay restitution to the Plaintiffs and Class Members. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows: A. A temporary, preliminary, and/or permanent injunction enjoining the abovedescribed wrongful acts and practices of Defendants, for which there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law, and from which irreparably injury, loss or damage will occur to the Plaintiffs, the Class, and the general public; B. A determination that this action is a proper class action maintainable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, certifying an appropriate Plaintiff Class, certifying Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appointing Plaintiffs counsel as Class Counsel; C. An order requiring Defendants to make restitution to each Plaintiff and Class Member of any and all money or property paid by that Plaintiff or Class Member for the purchase or reimbursement of purchase for Budeprion XL; D. A determination by the Court of the most suitable mode by which Class Members are to come forward, identify themselves, and prove their entitlement to share in the total sum awarded by the Court for actual, statutory, and punitive damages; E. An award of reasonable attorneys fees; F. An award of pre- and post-judgment interest; G. An award of the costs of suit incurred; 18

19 H. An award of statutory damages and/or penalties alleged herein or otherwise applicable under state law, including punitive damages; I. An award of such other and further relief, including declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, as may be found just and proper by this Honorable Court. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury. JURY DEMAND Respectfully submitted, s/jack Landskroner JACK LANDSKRONER ( PAUL GRIECO ( DREW LEGANDO ( Landskroner Grieco Madden, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, Ohio / / (fax jack@lgmlegal.com paul@lgmlegal.com drew@lgmlegal.com ALLAN KANNER (La CONLEE S. WHITELEY (La M. RYAN CASEY (La Kanner & Whiteley, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana / / (fax a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com r.casey@kanner-law.com WAYNE S. KREGER (Ca GILLIAN L. WADE (Ca Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, California / / (fax Counsel for Plaintiffs 19