In the case of law entitled Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC V. Impax Laboratories Inc., the aforementioned company brought a suit against Impax Laboratories Inc., claiming that it had breached 1991’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending advertisements for its EpiPen via fax to thousands of pharmacies, including the Family Medicine Co, LLC.
Impax Laboratories has agreed to pay 4.8m in a bid to finalize the Class Action suit leveled against them. The Family Medicine Co. LLC asserts that Impax Laboratories has been illegally advertising their product, an epinephrine auto-injector, since 2013. The company Mylan introduced EpiPen into the market, which is a similar product, and the Impax auto-injector is the cheaper alternative to Mylan’s product.
The Class Action suit was heard in a courtroom in Southern Alabama. The final settlement of 4.8m US dollars will be broken down into an award of US $500 for each of the faxes received by approximately 48, 150 members of the Class Action suit.
The plaintiff in the suit, Family Medicine LLC, will receive remuneration of US $20,000 for their role as Class Action representative. This Class Action suit was placed on record for the first time in January 2017. On March 2017, Impax Laboratories filed a Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint that had been filed by the Family Medicine Co LLC., earlier in the year. In response to the Motion to Dismiss the Family Medicine Co LLC., filed an Amended Class Action, which is now the case that is in motion before the court. The initial Class Action suit has been dismissed completely.
However, a number of issues arise from these actions, including the question of whether the Motion to Dismiss has any validity because the document against which the Motion to Dismiss was filed no longer has any legal force. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss may be deemed Moot and no longer applicable.
In the case where the Defendant wishes to renew the Motion to Dismiss, this party must wholly reproduce its initial arguments prior to the date of April 25, 2017. This is because the Defendant may not refer to arguments that may have been produced in the original documents.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170412b11
