On December 19, eighteen suits against Juul were filed in a very short period of time. Juul has on average, been hit with four to six lawsuits a day. The large number of suits filed in just one court could indicate a coordinated strategy against the controversial tobacco company. Most cases were involved, at least, product liability. All of the eighteen Juul suits were filed in the California Northern District Court.
The suits are Erdmann v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Williams v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; O’Donnell Juul Labs, Inc et al; Jones v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Helton v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Rivas v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Fox v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Potter v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Owen v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Masi v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Frederick County, Maryland v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; McMahon v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Jefferson County Public School District v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; DeRosa v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Greenblatt v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Craft v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Goldberg v. Juul Labs, Inc et al; Gorelkin v. Juul Labs, Inc et al.
A few of the plaintiffs are represented by the same law firms: twelve are represented by Domnick Cunningham and Whalen, four are represented by Fears Nachawati, one is represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, as well as one represented by Frazer. Domnick and Fears are both personal injury law firms.
The complaints alleged that Juul used false, fraudulent, negligent and misleading marketing and sale practices for its addictive products, which has led to the injury of the plaintiffs. Each has sought an injunction and relief from damages.
