A Southern District of New York judge denied defendant Walgreens’ bid to dismiss a case brought against it alleging false advertising of lidocaine patches sold in the defendant pharmacies. In the same opinion, the court consolidated the case with a similar one with nearly identical claims and on behalf of an identical class.
According to the opinion, the plaintiff, a customer of Walgreens named Michael Toporek, brought this suit against Walgreens over false advertising of its lidocaine patches. The motion to consolidate will fold the case into another brought by Delenator Stevens.
The lawsuits allege that Walgreens falsely touts its lidocaine patches’ durability and strength; according to the complaint, the patches often fall off well before their 12-hour stated effect. Toporek also alleged that while the patches are advertised as “maximum strength,” they only contain 4% lidocaine, when other competing products contain 5%.
The opinion states that the consolidation of the cases against Walgreens is warranted because neither party is opposed, the factual allegations are identical, and separate litigation would be inefficient.
Toporek is represented by The Sultzer Law Group. Stevens is represented by Bursor & Fisher and Gucovschi Rozenshteyn. In both cases, Walgreens is represented by Dentons.
