This case was last updated from PACER on 10/14/2021 at 07:25:57 (UTC).

Ali v. 7-ELEVEN, INC

Case Summary

On October 13, 2021, Cristian Ali, (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Joel L. Oster of Oster Law Firm and Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, filed a personal property fraud lawsuit against 7-ELEVEN, Inc., (“Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains and damages and costs of litigation for the Defendant’s alleged false and misleading representations and omissions in marketing and sale of JUUL E-Cigarettes (the “Products”). This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida with Judge Federico A. Moreno presiding. 


In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant markets the Products as a safer or at least comparable alternative to cigarettes when in fact they are not because a single JUUL e-cigarette delivers the same amount of nicotine as an entire pack of traditional cigarettes; the Products highly concentrated nicotine delivery system causes users to easily become addicted to the harmful Products.  Defendant provides No Warning that the Products are far more potent and addictive than conventional cigarettes.”


Plaintiff further alleged that, “Despite Defendant’s actual knowledge of the extremely high nicotine content and wealth of information elucidating the inordinate hazards of the Products, Defendant failed to warn that the Products it markets and sells are far more potent and addictive than tobacco cigarettes. In fact, prior to 2018, Defendant failed to warn that the Products contained any nicotine at all.”


Plaintiff also alleged that, “As a result, Plaintiff has purchased Products that are unreasonably harmful and addictive and not as represented by Defendant. Defendant’s marketing and advertising of the Products is false and deceptive. Through a variety of advertising methods, including but not limited to product placement and postings in and around 7-Eleven stores and online advertising of the Products, Defendant has made false representations regarding the true nature of the Products by, inter alia, omitting information know to Defendant that would be material to the purchasing decision of reasonable consumers like Plaintiff and the members of the putative class.”


Plaintiff lists out six claims for relief. The first claim is for the violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq. The second claim is for negligent misrepresentation. The third claim is for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The fourth claim is for breach of implied warranty of fitness for purpose. The fifth claim is for breach of Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq., and the sixth claim is for unjust enrichment. 


In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court for an order certifying this action as a class action and enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage, use, or employ any unfair and/or deceptive business acts or practices related to the design, manufacture and advertising of the Products for the purpose of selling the Products in such manner and restoring all monies that may have been acquired by Defendant as a result of such unfair and/or deceptive act or practices. Further, Plaintiff requested the court to require Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and pay actual damages, including attorney’s fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and any other award the court might deem just, appropriate, or proper.


This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Federico A. Moreno


Party Details


cristian ali



Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Spencer Sheehan

Attorney at Sheehan & Associates, P.C.

60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409

Great Neck, NY 11021

Joel L. Oster

Attorney at Oster Law Firm

22052 W. 66Th St #192

Shawnee, KS 66226


Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Exhibit 1



Docket Entries

  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorney Spencer Sheehan, mailing date October 13, 2021, (pt) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • Docket(#2) Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Federico A. Moreno. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (jbs) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against 7-ELEVEN, INC. Filing fees $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15086303, filed by cristian ali. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Oster, Joel) (Entered: 10/13/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where 7-Eleven Inc is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Spencer Sheehan