This case was last updated from PACER on 09/30/2021 at 06:04:12 (UTC).

EDWARDS v. PFIZER, INC.

Case Summary

On September 29, 2021, Albert Edwards (“Plaintiff”), individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Ruben Honik of Honik LLC, filed a personal property fraud lawsuit against Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, along with damages including restitution, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, for the alleged damages sustained by people who paid for or made reimbursements for generic varenicline-containing drugs (“VCDs”) that were illegally and willfully manufactured by Defendant Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”). This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with Judge Gene E.K. Pratter presiding. 

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “This case arises from adulterated, misbranded, and unapproved varenicline-containing drugs (“VCDs”) that were designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, and/or ultimately sold by Defendant Pfizer, Inc., in the United States under the brand name Chantix®. These VCDs are non-merchantable, and are not of the quality represented by Defendant.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “At all pertinent times for this action, Defendant represented and warranted to consumers that its VCDs were therapeutically equivalent to and otherwise the same as the FDA-approved brand name drug Chantix. Specifically, Defendant represented and warranted that the VCDs were fit for their ordinary uses, met the specifications of Defendant’s FDA-approved labeling materials, and were manufactured and distributed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “However, Defendant willfully ignored warnings about the operating standards, and knowingly and fraudulently manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed, and/or distributed adulterated and/or misbranded VCDs for purchase in the United States by consumers.” “Defendant VCDs were adulterated and/or misbranded (and thereby rendered worthless) through contamination with a probable human carcinogen known as n-nitroso-varenicline. Additionally, Defendant was on notice of other potential nitrosamines as well, such as n-nitrosdimethylamine (“NDMA”) and n-nitrosodiethlamine (“NDEA”).”

 

Plaintiff lists out ten claims for relief. The first claim is for breach of express warranties. The second claim is for breach of implied warranties. The third claim is for violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The fourth claim is for fraud. The fifth claim is for negligent misrepresentation and omission. The sixth claim is for violation of state consumer protection laws. The seventh claim is for unjust enrichment. The eighth claim is for negligence. The ninth claim is for negligence per se, and the tenth claim is for medical monitoring.

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court to certify this action as a class action declaring that Defendant is liable under each and every one of the above-enumerated causes of action, and pass an order awarding appropriate preliminary and/or final injunctive relief against the conduct of Defendant described above. Plaintiff further requested the court for payment to Plaintiff and Class Members for all damages, exemplary or punitive damages, and/or restitution associated with the conduct for all causes of action. Further, Plaintiff requested the court for an award of attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, costs, statutory penalties, the creation of a medical monitoring fund and/or program that is reasonably necessary to detect the elevated cancer risk, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as the court may deem just, equitable, 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:

    2:21-CV-04275

  • Filing Date:

    09/29/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GENE E.K. PRATTER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ALBERT EDWARDS

Defendant

PFIZER, INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

RUBEN HONIK

Attorney at Honik LLC

1515 Market St., Ste. 1100

Philadelphia, PA 19102

 

Court Documents

1 #2

Designation Form

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketSummons Issued as to PFIZER, INC.. E-MAILED To: COUNSEL on 9/29/21 (bw, ) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against PFIZER, INC. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number APAEDC-15439771.), filed by ALBERT EDWARDS. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Designation Form)(HONIK, RUBEN) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Inc Pfizer is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Ruben Honik