`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Monique Bell, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
` CASE NO. 21-cv-06850
`
` CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff Monique Bell (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of herself and all
`
`others similarly situated against Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff makes
`
`the following allegations pursuant to the investigation of her counsel and based upon information
`
`and belief, except as to the allegations specifically pertaining to herself, which are based on
`
`personal knowledge.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Defendant’s
`
`lidocaine patches (the “Lidocaine Patches”).1 Defendant markets, sells and distributes the
`
`Lidocaine Patches through numerous brick-and-mortar CVS retail locations and online through
`
`www.cvs.com.
`
`1 The Lidocaine Patches include Defendant’s “MAXIMUM STRENGTH Lidocaine Pain Relief
`Patch”; “MAXIMUM STRENGTH LIDOCAINE Cold & Hot Patch”; and “MAXIMUM
`STRENGTH Lidocaine Pain-Relieving Patch.” Plaintiff has standing to sue Defendant for all of
`the Lidocaine Patches because “1) the products are substantially similar to the products that she
`did purchase; and 2) the alleged misrepresentation is the same.” See e.g., Rivera v. S.C. Johnson
`& Son, Inc., No. 20-CV-3588 (RA), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183759, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 24,
`2021)
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 2
`
`2.
`
`Lidocaine is a topical anesthetic that is used to treat pain by blocking the
`
`transmission of pain signals from nerve endings in the skin to the spinal cord and brain.
`
`Specifically, lidocaine functions by blocking sodium channels located on nerve endings which
`
`prevents action potential from propagating in the nerve cell and thereby interrupting the
`
`transmission of the pain signal.
`
`3.
`
`Although lidocaine patches are often prescribed by doctors, Defendant offers its
`
`Lidocaine Patches over-the-counter to unsuspecting consumers under false pretenses. Defendant
`
`takes advantage of these consumers by prominently displaying on the packaging of the Lidocaine
`
`Patches that the patches deliver a “Maximum Strength” dose of lidocaine for up to 12 or 8 hours.
`
`Plaintiff and the proposed class members relied on those representations when making their
`
`purchases. To their dismay, however, Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches regularly peel off their
`
`bodies within a few hours, and oftentimes minutes, after being properly applied, and do not
`
`deliver a maximum amount of lidocaine available in patch form.
`
`4.
`
`As a result of its deceptive conduct, Defendant is, and continues to be, unjustly
`
`enriched at the expense of its customers.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein individually
`
`and on behalf of the class pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as amended by the Class Action Fairness
`
`Act of 2005. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper because: (1) the amount in controversy in this
`
`class action exceeds five million dollars, exclusive of interest and costs; (2) there are more than
`
`100 Class members; (3) at least one member of the Class is diverse from the Defendant; and (4)
`
`the Defendant is not a governmental entity.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 3
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts
`
`substantial business within New York, including the sale, marketing, and advertising of the
`
`Lidocaine Patches. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s
`
`claims occurred in this State, including Plaintiff’s purchases.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant
`
`does substantial business in this District and a substantial part of the events giving rise to
`
`Plaintiff’s claims took place within this District.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Monique Bell is a citizen of New York, residing in Brooklyn, New York.
`
`Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s Lidocaine Pain Relief Patch for her personal use for
`
`approximately $9.79 on various occasions within the applicable statute of limitations, with her
`
`most recent purchase taking place in September of 2021. Plaintiff made these purchases at a CVS
`
`store located in Brooklyn, New York. Prior to her purchases, Plaintiff saw that the Lidocaine
`
`Patches were labeled and marketed as “Maximum Strength” patches capable of delivering a 4%
`
`lidocaine dose for “UP TO 12 HOURS” and read the directions on the back label, which
`
`indicated that she could use “1 patch for up to 12 hours.” Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s
`
`representations when she decided to purchase the Lidocaine Patches over comparable and less
`
`expensive pain-relieving patches or gels. Plaintiff saw those representations prior to and at the
`
`time of her purchases and understood them as a representation and warranty that the Lidocaine
`
`Patches would reliably adhere to her body and deliver a 4% lidocaine dose for 12 hours. Initially,
`
`Plaintiff became frustrated when her Lidocaine Patches peeled off her body while engaging in
`
`regular activities—such as walking, sitting, stretching, and sleeping—well before the represented
`
`12 hours, through no fault of her own. Plaintiff, nonetheless, continued to purchase other
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 4
`
`Lidocaine Patches, believing that such failures were the result of one-off manufacturing flukes.
`
`After giving the Lidocaine Patches the benefit of the doubt, however, Plaintiff stopped
`
`purchasing them altogether after realizing that the Lidocaine Patches consistently failed to
`
`provide pain relief by delivering a 4% lidocaine dose for “UP TO 12 HOURS.” For example, on
`
`a couple of occasions, the Lidocaine Patches that Plaintiff bought peeled off her body within an
`
`hour or two after she properly applied them pursuant to the directions contained on the
`
`products—delivering little to no analgesic effect to her sore muscles. Plaintiff relied on
`
`Defendant’s representations and warranties in deciding to purchase her Lidocaine Patches.
`
`Accordingly, those representations and warranties were part of the basis of her bargains, in that
`
`she would not have purchased her Lidocaine Patches on the same terms had she known those
`
`representations and warranties were false. However, Plaintiff remains interested in purchasing
`
`Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches and would consider the Lidocaine Patches in the future if
`
`Defendant ensured the products actually provide pain relief by delivering a 4% lidocaine dose to
`
`her body for “UP TO 12 HOURS.” Additionally, in making her purchases, Plaintiff paid a
`
`substantial price premium due to Defendant’s false and misleading claims regarding the qualities
`
`of its Lidocaine Patches. However, Plaintiff did not receive the benefit of her bargains because
`
`her Lidocaine Patches did not, in fact, provide pain relief by delivering a 4% “Maximum
`
`Strength” dose of lidocaine to her body for “UP TO 12 HOURS.”
`
`9.
`
`Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“Defendant”) is a Rhode Island corporation with
`
`its principal place of business in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. Defendant markets, sells, and
`
`distributes the Lidocaine Patches and is responsible for the advertising, marketing, trade dress,
`
`and packaging of the Lidocaine Patches. Defendant marketed, distributed, and sold the Lidocaine
`
`Patches during the class period.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 5
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Defendant’s False Advertising
`
`10.
`
`Defendant markets, sells, and distributes the Lidocaine Patches through numerous
`
`brick-and-mortar CVS retail locations and online through www.cvs.com. On the Lidocaine
`
`Patches packaging, Defendant represents that its Lidocaine Patches last up to 12 or 8 hours,
`
`depending on the product. The Lidocaine Patches are all substantially similar in that they all
`
`share similar adhesiveness misrepresentations:
`
`11.
`
`By representing that Lidocaine Patches can be applied “UP TO 12 HOURS” or
`
`“UP TO 8 HOURS”—a very specific number2—Defendant induced Plaintiff and the proposed
`
`class members into believing that the Lidocaine Patches: (1) would continuously adhere to their
`
`bodies up to 12 or 8 hours; (2) were sufficiently flexible to withstand regular activities (such as
`
`walking, stretching, and sleeping) for someone who is suffering from sore muscles; and (3)
`
`would continuously relieve pain by providing a 4% lidocaine dose throughout the specified
`
`
`2Although under 2nd Circuit precedent in Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633, 637 (2d Cir.
`2018) reasonable consumers are not “expected to look beyond misleading representations on the
`front of the box” to cure a defendant’s misrepresentation contained therein, the back labels of the
`Lidocaine Patches reinforce the misrepresentations made on their front labels—i.e., they all
`misleadingly instruct either to “use 1 patch for up to 12 hours” or to “remove the patch from the
`skin after, at most, 8-hour application.” Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 6
`
`amount of time represented therein. Furthermore, by representing that the Lidocaine Patches
`
`provide “Maximum Strength,” Defendant induced Plaintiff and the proposed class members into
`
`believing that the Lidocaine Patches: (1) contain and deliver the maximum amount of lidocaine
`
`available in patch form; and (2) that they are superior, or at least equivalent, in efficacy and
`
`results to other over-the-counter and/or prescription-strength lidocaine patches.
`
`12.
`
`Despite these representations, however, Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches: (1)
`
`systematically fail to adhere to its consumers’ bodies up to 12 or 8 hours; (2) are insufficiently
`
`flexible to withstand regular activities (such as walking, stretching, and sleeping); (3) fail to
`
`continuously relieve pain by providing a 4% lidocaine dose throughout the specified amount of
`
`time represented therein due to their partial or complete detachment; (4) do not provide the
`
`maximum amount of lidocaine available in patch form; and (5) are not superior, or at least
`
`equivalent, in efficacy and results to other over-the-counter and/or prescription-strength
`
`lidocaine patches.
`
`Defendant’s Knowledge of the Defective Lidocaine Patches
`
`13.
`
`Defendant knew that its Lidocaine Patches did not live up to the adhesiveness
`
`representations contained therein based on dozens of complaints posted on its own website,
`
`www.cvs.com, which Defendant actively monitors.
`
`14.
`
`For example, in May of 2021, a buyer explained their issue trying to get a
`
`Lidocaine Patch to adhere to their body:
`
`“Absolutely awful. Active ingredient doesn’t matter because the delivery method
`doesn’t stick at all. Post-it notes have better adhesion. Spend a couple extra bucks
`and get something that will stay on.”3
`
`
`
`3 https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-lidocaine-patch-max-strength-5-ct-prodid-1910091 (last
`accessed December 10, 2021).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 7
`
`15.
`
`In June of 2020, yet another consumer expressed their frustration using
`
`Defendant’s Lidocaine Patch:
`
`“If I could give negative stars I would. These simply do not stay on. Obviously
`this is a real problem with this product since so many reviews reflect the same
`opinion. If you’re going to claim that your product is comparable to another, you
`should at least assure that it is able to be compared to said product. I am unable
`to compare it when it won’t even stay put! Complete waste of money.”4
`
`16.
`
`Furthermore, Defendant knew, or should have known, that its Lidocaine Patches
`
`were defectively designed based on FDA reports and scientific studies regarding the efficacy of
`
`the products.
`
`17.
`
`Specifically, Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches work by delivering lidocaine through
`
`a transdermal mechanism—i.e., by delivering the analgesic chemical “through the dermis, or
`
`skin…in ointment or patch form.”5 According to FDA reports, transdermal drug delivery
`
`systems, such as the one used by Defendant, systematically fail to adhere to the body.6 To that
`
`end, the FDA is in the process of finalizing an industry guidance on “Transdermal and Topical
`
`Delivery Systems” to address, inter alia, “considerations for areas where quality is closely tied to
`
`product performance and potential safety issues, such as adhesion failure…”7
`
`
`4 https://www.cvs.com/shop/cvs-health-maximum-strength-pain-relief-patch-3-5-16-x-5-1-2-10-
`cm-x-14-cm-5-ct-prodid-1730040 (last accessed December 10, 2021).
`5 https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/transdermal (last accessed December10,
`2021).
`6 See Yellela S.R. Krishnaiah, FDA Perspectives on Product Quality of Transdermal Drug
`Delivery Systems, PhD Division of Product Quality Research OTR/OPQ/CDER US Food and
`Drug Administration Silver Spring, MD, USA AAPSKrishnaiah, October 2015_Sunrise Session
`(2015). https://healthdocbox.com/Deafness/74997073-Fda-perspectives-on-product-quality-of-
`transdermal-drug-delivery-systems.html (last accessed December 10, 2021). at pg. 8.
`7 See 84 FR 64319 - Transdermal and Topical Delivery Systems-Product Development and
`Quality Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability (2019)
`https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2019-D-4447-0001 (last accessed December 10,
`2021).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 8
`
`18.
`
`Even more alarming, the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System reports that
`
`approximately 70% of concerns stemming from lidocaine patches involve their poor adhesion.8
`
`19.
`
`Furthermore, a peer-reviewed study published in January of 2021 by the Journal
`
`of Pain Research found that 0% of generic prescription lidocaine patches had a >90% adhesion
`
`rate to the study’s subjects after 12 hours (i.e., essentially no part of the product lifting off the
`
`skin).9 The study also found that after 12 hours, “37.5% of subjects experienced substantial
`
`detachment (to <10% adhesion) while using the generic lidocaine patch 5%, including 7 (29.1%)
`
`complete detachments.” The study also found that the mean adhesiveness score of the generic
`
`lidocaine patches after 12 hours was 37.67% (where 0% reflects complete detachment and 50%
`
`reflects half the product lifting off the skin but not detached). In contrast, the study found that a
`
`newly developed 1.8% lidocaine patch technology, which is bioequivalent to 5% lidocaine
`
`patches,10 maintained a mean adhesion >90% across all time points (0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h).
`
`
`8 See Gudin J, Nalamachu S. Utility of lidocaine as a topical analgesic and improvements in
`patch delivery systems. Postgrad Med. 2020;132(1):28–36. doi:10.1080/00325481.2019.1702296
`https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00325481.2019.1702296 (last accessed December
`10, 2021).
`9 See Gudin J, Webster LR, Greuber E, Vought K, Patel K, Kuritzky L. Open-Label Adhesion
`Performance Studies of a New Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% versus Lidocaine Patches 5% and
`Lidocaine Medicated Plaster 5% in Healthy Subjects. J Pain Res. 2021;14:513-526. Published
`2021 Feb 23. doi:10.2147/JPR.S287153.
`https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7914064/ (last accessed December 10, 2021).
`The study measured adhesion of the patches “immediately after application (0 hours) and at 3, 6,
`9, and 12 hours (±15 minutes; before product removal) after application. Assessments in Study 1
`were performed by a trained scorer using the FDA-recommended 5-point adhesion scale. The
`FDA scale ranges from 0 to 4, where 0 represents (cid:149)90% of the product adhered (essentially no
`part of the product lifting off the skin), 1 represents 75% to <90% adhered (only some edges of
`the product lifting off the skin), 2 represents 50% to <75% adhered (less than half the product
`lifting off the skin), 3 represents >0% to <50% adhered (more than half the product lifting off the
`skin but not detached), and 4 represents 0% adhered (complete product detachment). The mean
`cumulative adhesion score was calculated by summing the scores at 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours and
`dividing the total by the total number of observations per subject.” Id.
`10 Gudin J, Argoff C, Fudin J, Greuber E, Vought K, Patel K, Nalamachu S. A Randomized,
`Open-Label, Bioequivalence Study of Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% and Lidocaine Patch 5%
`in Healthy Subjects. J Pain Res. 2020 Jun 22;13:1485-1496. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S237934. PMID:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 9
`
`20.
`
`Although the study published by the Journal of Pain Research only tested generic
`
`prescription lidocaine patches, upon information and belief, Defendant’s over-the-counter
`
`Lidocaine Patches—which have not undergone the rigorous approval process required by the
`
`FDA and use the same outdated and defective adhesion technology as the generic lidocaine
`
`patches11 —fair no better.
`
`21.
`
`Furthermore, while certain companies have innovated their technology based on
`
`clinical studies to ensure that their lidocaine patches reliably adhere to a consumer’s body,12 even
`
`while exercising,13 upon information and belief, Defendant has not.
`
`22.
`
`In complete disregard of the wealth of information to the contrary, however,
`
`Defendant continues to misrepresent that its Lidocaine Patches reliably adhere to its consumers’
`
`bodies up to 12 or 8 hours when, in fact, they do not. Defendant also failed to inform its
`
`consumers that the Lidocaine Patches are prone to even greater detachment when they engage in
`
`certain activities (such as walking, stretching, and sleeping). Nor is Defendant’s representation
`
`that its Lidocaine Patches are capable of continuously relieving pain by providing a 4% lidocaine
`
`
`32606914; PMCID: PMC7319520. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7319520/
`(last accessed December 10, 2021).
`11 Defendant, whose Lidocaine Patches are manufactured in China, has not been approved by the
`FDA to market or sell its Lidocaine Patches despite being required to do so. The FDA is
`currently reviewing a Citizen Petition filed by Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc. (a manufacturer of
`FDA-approved lidocaine patches) to remove from the market any over-the-counter lidocaine
`patches that lack FDA approval. See https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2019-P-
`0417/document (last accessed December 10, 2021).
`12 https://www.scilexpharma.com/scilex-presents-ztlido-data-on-superior-adhesion-over-
`lidocaine-patch-formulation/ (last accessed December 10, 2021).
`13A separate study demonstrated that Scilex’s lidocaine patches were able to reliably adhere
`when subjects engaged in moderate physical exercise (exercise bike) and heat (heating pad). See
`Fudin J, Wegrzyn EL, Greuber E, Vought K, Patel K, Nalamachu S. A Randomized, Crossover,
`Pharmacokinetic and Adhesion Performance Study of a Lidocaine Topical System 1.8% During
`Physical Activity and Heat Treatment in Healthy Subjects. J Pain Res. 2020;13:1359-1367.
`Published 2020 Jun 10. doi:10.2147/JPR.S238268.
`https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293912/#CIT0007 (last accessed December
`10, 2021).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 10
`
`dose throughout the specified time periods true: given that they systematically fail to fully adhere
`
`to its consumers’ bodies. This is crucial because “[a]dequate adhesion is a critical quality
`
`attribute for topical delivery systems; if the product lifts or detaches during wear, dosing may be
`
`compromised and there is an increased risk of inadvertent exposure to others.”14
`
`23.
`
`To make matters worse, Defendant misrepresents, without providing adequate
`
`disclaimers, that its Lidocaine Patches provide a “Maximum Strength” dose of lidocaine, when,
`
`in fact, there are superior lidocaine patches in the market that deliver a higher amount of
`
`lidocaine: including the previously mentioned 5% and 1.8% prescription-strength lidocaine
`
`patches.15 Defendant compounds this problem by indicating that its “MAXIMUM STRENGTH
`
`LIDOCAINE Cold & Hot Patch” is “Medicated”—thereby reinforcing the misrepresentation that
`
`the Lidocaine Patches are comparable to prescription-strength lidocaine patches.
`
`24.
`
`Furthermore, nothing in Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches indicates that they
`
`provide a greater dose of lidocaine in comparison to other over-the-counter lidocaine patches,
`
`including its own. Specifically, Defendant’s representation that its Lidocaine Patches contain 4%
`
`lidocaine is misleading because the actual strength of a lidocaine patch is measured by the “mass
`
`of drug relative to the mass of the adhesive per patch.”16 In other words, Defendant’s
`
`representation that its Lidocaine Patches contain 4% lidocaine does not indicate the actual
`
`amount of lidocaine milligrams that its Lidocaine Patches deliver to a consumer’s body.17
`
`
`
`14 See supra footnote 10.
`15 Id.
`16 See Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Citizen Petition. Exhibit B at pg. 19.
`17 “It is emphasized that most of these patch products are labeled as a percentage strength,
`without providing the total drug content per patch. For other topical dosage forms like creams,
`ointments, and lotions, the amount of drug administered can easily be determined by weighing
`the mass of product and applying the strength factor as illustrated in the table below. In contrast,
`the amount of drug applied for patch products cannot easily be determined because the exact
`mass of adhesive applied cannot be estimated due to the contributing mass of the backing
`materials. inasmuch as patches are manufactured in a variety of sizes and thicknesses, the drug
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 11
`
`25.
`
`Shockingly, and by way of illustration, Defendant labels its “MAXIMUM
`
`STRENGTH LIDOCAINE Cold & Hot Patch” as possessing “MAXIMUM STRENGTH
`
`LIDOCAINE” although it has a lesser amount of lidocaine per patch (240 milligrams)18 than its
`
`“MAXIMUM STRENGTH Lidocaine Pain Relief Patch” and “MAXIMUM STRENGTH
`
`Lidocaine Pain-Relieving Patch,” both of which contain 567 milligrams of lidocaine per
`
`patch.1920 Further, all of Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches contain less lidocaine than other over-
`
`the-counter lidocaine patches: which range from 600 to 4,500 milligrams.21 Defendant’s arbitrary
`
`and patently false claim regarding the strength of its Lidocaine Patches goes beyond the pale.
`
`26.
`
`Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations
`
`and omissions alleged herein, Plaintiff and the proposed class members would not have
`
`purchased the Lidocaine Patches or would not have paid as much as they did for those purchases.
`
`Thus, Plaintiff and the proposed class members suffered an injury in fact and lost money or
`
`property as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
`
`persons pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
`
`28.
`
`The class periods shall be defined from the date of the filing of this Complaint,
`
`back to any such time the Court deems appropriate.
`
`
`exposure from patches is unknown and cannot be estimated by reviewing the product label,
`unless the manufacturer discloses the drug mass. Many of the patch products exclude this from
`their labels, and the absence of this information on unapproved OTC product labels creates a
`safety risk.” Ex. B at pg. 20.
`18 https://ndclist.com/ndc/66902-220 (last acesed December 10, 2021).
`19 https://ndclist.com/ndc/66902-215 (last acesed December 10, 2021).
`20 https://ndclist.com/ndc/66902-276 (last acesed December 10, 2021).
`21 See Attachment 1 to Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Citizen Petition. Exhibit C.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 12
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff seeks to represent all persons in the United States who purchased
`
`Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches (the “Class”).
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff also seeks to represent a subclass of all Class members who purchased
`
`Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches in New York (the “New York Subclass”) (collectively with the
`
`Class, the “Classes”).
`
`31.
`
`The Classes do not include (1) Defendant, its officers, and/or its directors; or (2)
`
`the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s staff.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the above class definitions and add additional
`
`classes and subclasses as appropriate based on investigation, discovery, and the specific theories
`
`of liability.
`
`33.
`
`Community of Interest: There is a well-defined community of interest among
`
`members of the Classes, and the disposition of the claims of these members of the Classes in a
`
`single action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court.
`
`34.
`
`Numerosity: While the exact number of members of the Classes is unknown to
`
`Plaintiff at this time and can only be determined by appropriate discovery, upon information and
`
`belief, members of the Classes number in the millions. The precise number of the members of
`
`the Classes and their identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time but may be determined
`
`through discovery. Members of the Classes may be notified of the pendency of this action by
`
`mail and/or publication through the distribution records of Defendant and third-party retailers
`
`and vendors.
`
`35.
`
`Existence and predominance of common questions of law and fact: Common
`
`questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes and predominate over any
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 13
`
`questions affecting only individuals of the Classes. These common legal and factual questions
`
`include, but are not limited to:
`
`(a) Whether the Lidocaine Patches are defective;
`
`(b) Whether Defendant knew of the Lidocaine Patches’ defective nature;
`
`(c) Whether Defendant breached the express warranties on the Lidocaine Patches’
`
`packaging;
`
`(d) Whether Defendant breached the Lidocaine Patches’ implied warranty of
`
`merchantability;
`
`(e) Whether Defendant breached the Lidocaine Patches’ implied warranty of fitness for
`
`use;
`
`(f) Whether Defendant’s representations that the Lidocaine Patches adhere “UP TO 12
`
`HOURS” or “UP TO 8 HOURS” or otherwise provides “Maximum Strength”
`
`lidocaine dosing is false and misleading in violation of New York’s consumer-
`
`protection statutes;
`
`(g) Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Classes have suffered damages as a result
`
`of Defendant’s actions and the amount thereof;
`
`(h) Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Classes are entitled to statutory damages;
`
`(i) Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Classes are entitled to restitution;
`
`(j) Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Classes are entitled to injunctive relief to
`
`enjoin Defendant from further engaging in these wrongful practices; and
`
`(k) Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Classes are entitled to attorney’s fees and
`
`costs.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 14
`
`36.
`
`Typicality: The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of other
`
`members of the Classes in that the named Plaintiff was exposed to Defendant’s false and
`
`misleading marketing, purchased Defendant’s defective Lidocaine Patches, and suffered a loss as
`
`a result of those purchases.
`
`37.
`
`Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
`
`of the Classes as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a)(4). Plaintiff is an
`
`adequate representative of the Classes because she has no interests which are adverse to the
`
`interests of the members of the Classes. Plaintiff is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this
`
`action and, to that end, Plaintiff has retained skilled and experienced counsel, and by providing a
`
`cure-notice to Defendant regarding the Lidocaine Patches’ defects on behalf of the members of
`
`the Classes to protect their interests.
`
`38.
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to all other available methods of the fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of the claims asserted in this action under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23(b)(3) because:
`
`(a) The expense and burden of individual litigation makes it economically unfeasible for
`
`members of the Classes to seek to redress their claims other than through the
`
`procedure of a class action;
`
`(b) If separate actions were brought by individual members of the Classes, the resulting
`
`duplicity of lawsuits would cause members of the Classes to seek to redress their
`
`claims other than through the procedure of a class action; and
`
`(c) Absent a class action, Defendant likely will retain the benefits of its wrongdoing, and
`
`there would be a failure of justice.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 15
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`Violation of New York’s Warranty Act, N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-313
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Subclass)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the
`
`39.
`
`foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches are goods as defined in N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-105(1).
`
`Plaintiff and the New York Subclass members are buyers as defined in N.Y.
`
`U.C.C. § 2-103(1)(a).
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant is a seller as defined in 15 N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-103(1)(d).
`
`15 N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-607 is satisfied because Plaintiff provided Defendant a
`
`reasonable opportunity to cure the defects contained in the Lidocaine Patches by sending
`
`Defendant a cure notice outlining those defects in full via certified mail on October 20, 2021.
`
`44.
`
`N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-313 provides a cause of action to buyers when sellers breach
`
`express warranties.
`
`45.
`
`On the Lidocaine Patches’ packaging, Defendant expressly warranted that its
`
`Lidocaine Patches were capable of providing pain relief by delivering a 4% lidocaine dose for
`
`“UP TO 12 HOURS” or “UP TO 8 HOURS,” depending on the product.
`
`46.
`
`Furthermore, on the Lidocaine Patches packaging, Defendant expressly warranted
`
`that its Lidocaine Patches provide a “Maximum Strength” dose of lidocaine in comparison to
`
`other over-the-counter and/or prescription-strength lidocaine patches.
`
`47.
`
`Those statements became the basis of the bargains for Plaintiff and the New York
`
`Subclass members because they are factual statements that a reasonable consumer would
`
`consider material when purchasing a lidocaine patch.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06850 Document 1 Filed 12/11/21 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 16
`
`48.
`
`Defendant breached these express warranties by delivering Lidocaine Patches
`
`that: (1) systemically fail to adhere to its consumers’ bodies up to 12 or 8 hours; (2) are
`
`insufficiently flexible to withstand regular activities (such as walking, stretching, and sleeping);
`
`(3) fail to continuously relieve pain by delivering a 4% lidocaine dose throughout the specified
`
`amount of time represented therein due to their partial or complete detachment; (4) do not
`
`provide the maximum amount of lidocaine available in patch form; and (5) are not superior, or at
`
`least equivalent, in efficacy and results to other over-the-counter and/or prescription-strength
`
`lidocaine patches.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`In so doing, Defendant breached N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-313.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of its express written
`
`warranties, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass members have been damaged in an amount to
`
`be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT II
`Violation of New York’s Warranty Act, N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-314
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Subclass)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the
`
`51.
`
`foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant’s Lidocaine Patches are goods as defined in N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-105(1).
`
`Plaintiff and the New York Subclass members are buyers as defined in N.Y.
`
`