FRAUD. $______ RECOVERY

• Pages: 12-13

decision to require the plaintiffs to wear a uniform

bearing the defendant’s company logo. The

defendants maintained that the plaintiffs were

employed and paid by an independent company

which the defendants were not responsible.

The jury found that the plaintiffs were employees of the

defendants and that they showed reckless disregard for

whether the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibited their

conduct. The first plaintiff (J. Rodriguez) was awarded

$14,000 in overtime wages and $3,500 in minimum

wages.

The second employee (R. Ruiz) was awarded $3,000 in

overtime and $500 in minimum wages for a combined

total of $21,000 for both plaintiffs. The court granted the

plaintiff’s motion for liquidated damages, attorney fees

and costs for a total plaintiff’s recovery of $116,258. The

defendant’s post-trial motions are pending.

REFERENCE

Rodriguez, et al. vs. Quickest International Courier, d/b/a

Quick Messenger Services, Inc., et al. Case no. 14-

003257-CA-01; Judge Samantha Ruiz-Cohen, 10-01-15.

Attorney for plaintiff: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre,

Anaeli C. Petisco and Tyler A. Stull of Remer &

Georges-Pierre, PLLC in Miami, FL.

FRAUD

RECOVERY

DOJ – Fraud – Dietary supplement company

accused of manufacturing and distributing

adulterated products – Alleged Violation of FTCA.

U.S. District Court, Florida

In this action, the U.S. Department of Justice

(DOJ) accused a dietary supplement of

distributing adulterated product. The matter was

resolved with a settlement.

Between 2012 and 2014, the defendant, Sunset Natural

Products Inc., a manufacturer of dietary supplements,

underwent several FDA inspections that allegedly re-

vealed a failure to conduct at least one appropriate test

or examination to verify the identity of every dietary in-

gredient before using the ingredient, as well as a failure

to establish product specifications for the identity, purity,

strength and composition of finished batches of dietary

supplements. The defendants allegedly failed to use

equipment and utensils of appropriate design, construc-

tion and workmanship to enable them to be

adequately cleaned and properly maintained.

The DOJ filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern

District of Florida at the request of the U.S. Food and

Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that the defendants

violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FTCA) by

manufacturing and distributing adulterated dietary sup-

plements. Under the law, dietary supplement manufac-

turersarerequiredtohavesystemsinplacetoensure

that their products meet specifications for identity, purity,

strength and composition.

The matter was resolved with a settlement, in which de-

fendant agreed to a permanent injunction against the

distribution of the allegedly-adulterated product.

REFERENCE

United States of America vs. Sunset Natural Products Inc.,

09-25-15.

Attorney for plaintiff: Melanie Singh of U.S.

Department of Justice - Civil Division - Consumer

Protection Branch in Washington, DC. Attorney for

plaintiff: Michele Svonkin of U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services - Office of General

Counsel - Food and Drug Division in Washington,

DC.

$2,100,000 RECOVERY

Fraud – Medical ‘discount’ card scammers banned

from selling healthcare-related products – Alleged

violation of FTC Act and Telemarketing and

consumer fraud and Abuse Act.

U.S. District Court, Southern, Florida

In this action, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

accused a mother-son marketing team of tricking

consumers into buying phony medical discount

cards. The matter was resolved with a settlement.

The defendants, in this matter, included a mother-son

marketing team who allegedly tricked Spanish-speaking

and other consumers into buying phony medical dis-

count cards. The defendants, Constanza and Walter V.,

and United Solutions Group Inc., allegedly misled con-

sumers into believing that they were buying a qualified

health insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act.

The defendants allegedly targeted consumers who

needed health insurance or were paying high premiums

for coverage because they had lost their jobs or had

pre-existing medical conditions. The defendants

claimed the “insurance” would pay for doctor and

12 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Volume 25, Issue 12, December 2015 Subscribe Now