Cases

SABATINO, P.J.A.D. *542This case exemplifies an inadequate way for an employer to go about extracting its employees' agreement to submit to binding arbitration for future claims and thereby waive their rights to sue the employer and seek a jury trial. The employer in this case emailed to its workforce what it called a "traini

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. Elaine Robinson is one of 64 women from 29 states who sued Pfizer in a Missouri state court, asserting state-law claims that arose from Pfizer’s manufacture and sale of the drug Lipitor, which they allege causes diabetes. Pfizer removed the ease to federal district court, 1 maintaining that the ca

OPINION AND ORDER JOHN V. ACOSTA, United States Magistrate Judge. : Introduction Plaintiff Kimberly Arnold (“Arnold”) brings this employment lawsuit against defendant Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) arising from a prior employment relationship. Arnold alleges claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101

ALIA MOSES, United States District Judge Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Victor R. Garcia, United States Magistrate Judge, filed February 1, 2019. (ECF No. 42.) In the report, Judge Garcia recommends that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court (ECF No. 19) be GRANTED and the Pharmaceutical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7)1 be <

692 F.Supp.2d 229 (2010) Becky McCLAIN, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-01795 (VLB). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. February 26, 2010. *231 Bruce E. Newman, Newman, Creed & Associates, Bristol, CT, for Plaintiff. Edward M. Richters, Tanya Ann Bovee, William Joseph Anthony,

COGAN, District Judge, dissenting: This is a case about a company making multiple misrepresentations and omissions to repeated inquiries by one of the plan’s beneficiaries, Dr. Diana Bell, regarding its ERISA regulated retirement plan. Because I conclude that Pfizer was acting in a fiduciary capacity when it made those misrepresentations and omissions, I dissent. I express no view on whether Pfizer’s misrepres

631 F.Supp.2d 554 (2009) Alla GRANOVSKY, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., Kforce, Inc., Defendants. Civ. No. 08-2280 (WHW). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. July 7, 2009. *556 Robert Frederick Hermann, Hermann & Bateman, for Plaintiff Alla Granovsky. John M. Nolan, Jackson Lewis LLP, for Defendant Pfizer, Inc.</

628 F.Supp.2d 267 (2009) Denise M. DEMBINSKI, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant. No. 3:08CV00541 (DJS). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. June 18, 2009. *269 Denise Bevza, Bevza & Brennan, LLC, New London, CT, for Plaintiff. Tanya Ann Bovee, William Joseph Anthony, Jackson Lewis, Hartford, CT, for Defen

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THOMAS D. SCHROEDER, District Judge. Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which raises two issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq. (“ADA”): whether driving is an “essential function” of Plaintiffs job as a sales representative and, because Plaintiff is legally blind, whether her employer has a duty

471 F.Supp.2d 1207 (2006) Jessica SOUTHERN, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., individually and as successor in interest to Parke-Davis and Warner Lambert Company, et al., Defendants. No. 2:06-CV-836-VEH. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. June 23, 2006. *1208 *1209

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, a group of consumers and organizations from Minnesota who have purchased prescription drugs in the United States from the defendant drug companies in the United States, filed suit pursuant to § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, for damages caused by alleged violations of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and pursuant to § 1

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Pfizer Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Motion to Strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) (“Mot.”). ECF No. 14. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds these motions appropriate fo

OPINION BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Dr. Dale Thurman filed suit against Pfizer, alleging that Pfizer misrepresented the monthly pension to which he would be entitled after five years of employment with the company. Thurman claims that these misrepresentations induced him to leave his prior job in order to work for Pfizer. Thurman initially sued

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PATTI B. SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”), Aetna, Inc. (“Aetna”), and Guardian Life Insurance Company (“Guardian”), collectively the Coordinated Plaintiffs, bring this case against Pfizer, Inc. and Warner-Lambert Company, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influ

499 F.Supp.2d 404 (2007) Diana BELL, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER INC., Pfizer Inc. Stock and Incentive Plan, Pfizer Employee Compensation and Management Development Committee, Pfizer Inc. Retirement Annuity Plan, and Pfizer Inc. Retirement Committee, Defendants. No. 03 Civ. 9945(KMW). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 1, 2007.

276 F.Supp.2d 904 (2003) Janet RUBEL, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER INC. and Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert Company, Defendants. No. 03 C 2674. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 12, 2003. *905 William J. Harte, William J. Harte, L

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CATHERINE D. PERRY, District Judge. Plaintiffs Pharmacia Corporation Supplemental Pension Plan and Pfizer, Inc. allege that defendant Virginia V. Weldon should be required to reimburse them for more than $1.3 million in pension distributions that they mistakenly paid to her. When Weldon retired she elected to receive her pension benefits in set monthly payments over a perio

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT GADOLA, District Judge. On October 13, 1993, plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment based upon alleged misconduct by defendants during the discovery process and because defendants’ witnesses and attorneys committed perjury. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2) (E.D.Mich. Jan. 1, 1992), the court dispensed with oral argument.

835 F.Supp. 1015 (1993) Diane KEMP, Personal Representative of the Estate of Terrance Clay Kemp, Deceased, and Diane Kemp, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER, INC. and Shiley, Inc., Defendants. Civ.A. No. 92-71386. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D. October 22, 1993. *1016 *1017

851 F.Supp. 269 (1994) Diane KEMP, Personal Representative of the Estate of Terrance Clay Kemp, Deceased, and Diane Kemp, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER, INC. and Shiley, Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 92-71386. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. March 30, 1994. *270 Mark Granzotto, Detroit, MI, D