This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 05/18/2022 at 15:58:15 (UTC).

Toporek v. Walgreen Co.

Case Summary

On April 11, 2022, Michael Toporek (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Jason P. Sultzer of The Sultzer Law Group, filed a class action lawsuit against Walgreen Co., (“Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages for the Defendant’s alleged deceptive and misleading business practices. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York with Judge James M. Wicks and Judge Joan M. Azrack presiding. 

The Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of himself and the Class Period (“Class”), pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). 

In their complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “This action seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Walgreen Co., with respect to the marketing and sale of Defendant’s various pain relief lidocaine patch products throughout the state of New York and throughout the country, including, but not limited to, the products (hereinafter collectively the “Products”).”

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Lidocaine belongs to the family of medicines called local anesthetics. It prevents pain by blocking the signals at the nerve endings in the skin. Lidocaine patches are often prescribed by doctors, but Defendant offers the Products over-the-counter to consumers. Defendant claims that the topical patches provide ‘pain relief’, that is ‘maximum strength’, through a ‘stay-put flexible patch’, that will work for ‘up to 12 hours’.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendant’s claims, representations, and warranties are false and misleading. As explained in further detail, despite proper application, within a short time the Products commonly fall off of consumers’ bodies, thus depriving consumers of the advertised benefits (i.e.- they don’t provide “pain relief,” that is ‘maximum strength’, through a ‘stay-put flexible patch’, that will work for “up to 12 hours” as promised).Defendant labels some of the Products as providing a “maximum strength” dose despite these Products only containing 4% lidocaine. Defendant’s ‘maximum strength’ claims are false and deceptive because there are other products available that offer lidocaine patches containing 5% lidocaine.”

The Plaintiff then allege that, “Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based upon these representations. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for Products based on Defendant's misrepresentations that the Products provide ‘pain relief’, that is ‘maximum strength’, through a ‘stay-put flexible patch’, that will work for ‘up to 12 hours’, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid.”

The Plaintiff finally alleged that, “Defendant breached and continues to breach its warranties regarding the Products. Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant on behalf of himself and Class Members who purchased the Products during the applicable statute of limitations period (the “Class Period”)”.

There are four claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first two claims alleged deal with the violation of New York GBL § 349 and § 350. The last two claims alleged deal with the breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant; that the Court direct Defendant to correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection statutes nationwide, including New York consumer protection laws; award the Plaintiff monetary and treble damages, with statutory damages of $50 per transaction, and treble damages for knowing and willful violations; and grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and 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:

    2:22-CV-02084

  • Filing Date:

    04/11/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Joan M. Azrack

Referral Judge

James M. Wicks

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Michael Toporek

Defendant

Walgreen Co.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Jason P. Sultzer

Attorney at The Sultzer Law Group P.C.

270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800

New York, NY 10016

Daniel Harris Markowitz

Attorney at The Sultzer Law Group P.C.

270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800

New York, NY 10016

Joseph Lipari

Attorney at The Sultzer Law Group P.C.

270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800

New York, NY 10016

Justin Adam Levy

Attorney at The Sultzer Law Group P.C.

270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800

New York, NY 10016

Defendant Attorneys

John Robert Vales

Attorney at Dentons US LLP

1221 Avenue Of The Americas

New York, NY 10020

Kelly Lloyd Lankford

Attorney at Dentons US LLP

101 Jfk Parkway

Short Hills, NJ 07078

Sara Marie Gates

Attorney at Dentons US LLP

1221 6Th Avenue

New York, NY 10020

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Proposed Summons

1 #2

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

(#2) This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (Flanagan, Doreen) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

#3

(#3) In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Flanagan, Doreen) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

#4

(#4) Summons Issued as to Walgreen Co.. (Flanagan, Doreen) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

#5

(#5) NOTICE of Appearance by Justin Adam Levy on behalf of Michael Toporek (aty to be noticed) (Levy, Justin) (Entered: 04/19/2022)

#6

(#6) NOTICE of Appearance by John Robert Vales on behalf of Walgreen Co. (aty to be noticed) (Vales, John) (Entered: 05/04/2022)

#7

(#7) NOTICE of Appearance by Sara Marie Gates on behalf of Walgreen Co. (aty to be noticed) (Gates, Sara) (Entered: 05/04/2022)

#8

(#8) Corporate Disclosure Statement by Walgreen Co. identifying Corporate Parent Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. for Walgreen Co.. (Vales, John) (Entered: 05/04/2022)

#9

(#9) NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly Lloyd Lankford on behalf of Walgreen Co. (aty to be noticed) (Lankford, Kelly) (Entered: 05/04/2022)

#10

(#10) Letter to Judge Azrack, on behalf of Defendant Walgreen Co., requesting a pre-motion conference re: anticipated motion(s) by Walgreen Co. (Vales, John) Modified on 5/5/2022 to change event type to motion (Coleman, Laurie). (Entered: 05/04/2022)

#11

(#11) Letter in response to Defendant Walgreen Co.s request for a pre-motion conference by Michael Toporek (Sultzer, Jason) (Entered: 05/11/2022)

1 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/11/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#11) Letter in response to Defendant Walgreen Co.s request for a pre-motion conference by Michael Toporek (Sultzer, Jason) (Entered: 05/11/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) Letter to Judge Azrack, on behalf of Defendant Walgreen Co., requesting a pre-motion conference re: anticipated motion(s) by Walgreen Co. (Vales, John) Modified on 5/5/2022 to change event type to motion (Coleman, Laurie). (Entered: 05/04/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly Lloyd Lankford on behalf of Walgreen Co. (aty to be noticed) (Lankford, Kelly) (Entered: 05/04/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) Corporate Disclosure Statement by Walgreen Co. identifying Corporate Parent Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. for Walgreen Co.. (Vales, John) (Entered: 05/04/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) NOTICE of Appearance by Sara Marie Gates on behalf of Walgreen Co. (aty to be noticed) (Gates, Sara) (Entered: 05/04/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) NOTICE of Appearance by John Robert Vales on behalf of Walgreen Co. (aty to be noticed) (Vales, John) (Entered: 05/04/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) NOTICE of Appearance by Justin Adam Levy on behalf of Michael Toporek (aty to be noticed) (Levy, Justin) (Entered: 04/19/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Summons Issued as to Walgreen Co.. (Flanagan, Doreen) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Flanagan, Doreen) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • DocketCase Assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Flanagan, Doreen) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (Flanagan, Doreen) (Entered: 04/12/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Walgreen Co. filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-15464163 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No,, filed by Michael Toporek. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Sultzer, Jason) (Entered: 04/11/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Walgreen Co. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Sara Marie Gates

Latest cases represented by Lawyer JOHN R. VALES