Teperson v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al
| Joshua Teperson |
| Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. and Zicam LLC |
| 2:2009cv02137 |
| October 14, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Frederick J Martone |
| Plaintiff |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
24
RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER AND DECREE as to All Economic Injury Actions. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. The Court hereby dismisses with prejudice the remainder of Plaintiffs' safety claims in each of the following economic injury actions, and each of the following actions in this MDL is dismissed: SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE LIST OF CASES. The Court finding that no reason exists for delay in ordering final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., the clerk is hereby directed to ente r this final Judgment forthwith. ORDERED granting (Doc. 998, Filed in MDL-2096) Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Efficacy Claims without Prejudice ORDERED granting (Doc. 1422, filed in MDL-2096) Plaintiffs' "Motion for Final Approval of t he Zicam Cold Remedy Intra-nasal Products Safety Settlement Class for Injunctive Relief Only and Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses". Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 5/27/11. (Original Judgment filed in MDL-2096, Doc. 1465). (MAP)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
