Fust

Fust v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 20242:23-cv-02853California4,317 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 DEBORAH FUST, INDIVIDUALLY AND No. 2:23-cv-2853 WBS DB

ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS

13 SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND EDWARD

PIMENTEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON

14 BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SITUATED,

15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., A

18 DELAWARE CORPORATION REGISTERED

TO DO BUSINESS AND HEADQUARTERED

19 IN CALIFORNIA, 20 Defendant. 21 22 ----oo0oo---- 23 Plaintiffs Deborah Fust and Edward Pimentel originally 24 filed this putative class action against defendant Gilead 25 Sciences, Inc. (“Gilead”) in Shasta County Superior Court, 26 seeking monetary and equitable relief pursuant to California’s 27 Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Claim 1); False Advertising Law 28 (Claim 2); Unfair Competition Law (Claim 3); money had and 1 received (Claim 4); negligent misrepresentation (Claim 5); and 2 unjust enrichment (Claim 6). Plaintiffs allege that defendant 3 exaggerated the benefits and downplayed the dangers of its drug 4 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.