Gubala v. CVS Health Corporation

Gubala v. CVS Health Corporation

Plaintiff:	Derek Gubala
Defendant:	CVS Health Corporation
Case Number:	1:2014cv09039
Filed:	November 11, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Chicago Office
County:	Cook
Presiding Judge:	Thomas M. Durkin
Nature of Suit:	Other Fraud
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 15, 2016	Filing 55 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint 40 is denied. Status hearing set for 3/22/2016 at 09:00 AM. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 3/15/2016:Mailed notice(srn, )
June 16, 2015	Filing 32 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. 16 Because Plaintiffs consumer fraud claims are expressly preempted by the NLEA and fail to state a claim, it is unnecessary to address CVSs additional defense of the pr imary jurisdiction doctrine at this time. In the event Plaintiff is able to amend his complaint in such a way that it avoids preemption, the Court will consider CVSs additional defenses if and when they are raised. For the foregoing reasons, CVSs Mot ion to Dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is allowed until July 16, 2015 to file an amended complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed other non-Illinois state law claims on behalf of a class of consum ers. R. 1. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice, as well. See, e.g., Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (If... the named plaintiffs claim becomes moot before the class is certified, the suit must be dismissed because no one besides the plaintiff has a legally protected interest in the litigation). However, the Court will allow amendment of the complaint by July 16, 2015 to include a named plaintiff who can prosecute those claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. Ford Motor Co., 435 F.3d 785, 787 (7th Cir. 2006) ([S]ubstitution for the named plaintiffs is allowed, because courts disregard the jurisdictional void that is created when the named plaintiffs claims are dismissed and, shortly afterwards, surrogates step forward to replace the named plaintiffs). Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 6/16/2015:Mailed notice(srn, )

Date Filed

Document Text

March 15, 2016

Filing 55 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint 40 is denied. Status hearing set for 3/22/2016 at 09:00 AM. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 3/15/2016:Mailed notice(srn, )

June 16, 2015

Filing 32 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. 16 Because Plaintiffs consumer fraud claims are expressly preempted by the NLEA and fail to state a claim, it is unnecessary to address CVSs additional defense of the pr imary jurisdiction doctrine at this time. In the event Plaintiff is able to amend his complaint in such a way that it avoids preemption, the Court will consider CVSs additional defenses if and when they are raised. For the foregoing reasons, CVSs Mot ion to Dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is allowed until July 16, 2015 to file an amended complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed other non-Illinois state law claims on behalf of a class of consum ers. R. 1. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice, as well. See, e.g., Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (If... the named plaintiffs claim becomes moot before the class is certified, the suit must be dismissed because no one besides the plaintiff has a legally protected interest in the litigation). However, the Court will allow amendment of the complaint by July 16, 2015 to include a named plaintiff who can prosecute those claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. Ford Motor Co., 435 F.3d 785, 787 (7th Cir. 2006) ([S]ubstitution for the named plaintiffs is allowed, because courts disregard the jurisdictional void that is created when the named plaintiffs claims are dismissed and, shortly afterwards, surrogates step forward to replace the named plaintiffs). Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 6/16/2015:Mailed notice(srn, )

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Gubala v. CVS Health Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Derek Gubala
Represented By:	Sharon S Almonrode
Represented By:	Gregory Wood Jones
Represented By:	Joseph J Siprut
Represented By:	Nick Suciu, III
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: CVS Health Corporation
Represented By:	Zachary J Watters
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?