A lawsuit filed on February 11, 2015 against Walgreen Co. and Duane Reade Inc. (collectively, "Walgreens"). Walgreens is the largest drug retailing chain in the United States, with around 8,217 stores in operation. In February 2010, Walgreens acquired the Duane Reade chain, and continues to operate it under the Duane Reade name. The lawsuit alleges that Walgreens has misbranded some of their supplements under the "Finest Nutrition" product line by not accurately identifying all the ingredients or the quantity of such ingredients included in the supplements. These claims are based on recent testing done by the New York State Attorney General which found that a sample of supplements, including "Finest Nutrition" brand Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, and Echinacea, did not contain the substances that they were named for. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce between a business and consumers. Affected consumers include any consumer nationwide who has purchased "Finest Nutrition" brand Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, or Echinacea.
Plaintiff alleges that Walgreens made uniform representations through their product labels, packaging, advertisement, and other marketing materials, which presented that their "Finest Nutrition" supplements contained the ingredients for which they were named. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges that by purchasing the aforementioned supplements, he formed a valid legal contract with Walgreens, which Walgreens breached by providing a product that did not contain the represented ingredients. Plaintiff claims that Walgreens' marketing of its products created an express warranty in the form of a reasonable expectation that the misbranded supplements would contain the represented ingredients. Plaintiff further claims that Walgreens breached this express warranty by providing supplements which did not contain the named ingredients that they were alleged to contain.
Plaintiff alleges that Walgreens breached an implied warranty of merchantability in the contract created between Walgreens and consumers for the sale of the named supplements because the misbranded supplements were defectively designed and unfit for their intended and ordinary purpose. Plaintiff claims that Walgreens charged a higher price for their supplements than the products' true value, which was misrepresented to consumers, and therefore allowed Walgreens to inequitably and unjustly increase financial gains at the expense of the consumers. Plaintiff alleges that Walgreens' misrepresentations were negligent and that they had no reasonable grounds upon which to believe that their claims were true when they made them.
Plaintiff argues that Walgreens violated New York's General Business Law by committing an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Walgreens was deceptive in their designing, packaging, marketing, distributing, and selling of misbranded supplements.
Anyone who has purchased Walgreens "Finest Nutrition" brand Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, or Echinacea may have a claim. Please contact the litigation attorneys at Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, (212) 300-0375, to schedule a free consultation so that we can discuss your rights.
Anyone who has purchased Walgreens "Finest Nutrition" brand Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, or Echinacea should contact Fitapelli & Schaffer, (212) 300-0375, or at www.fslawfirm.com, to see if you are eligible to join the case. You can also view the complaint here.
Workers such as servers, bussers, runners bartenders, barbacks and other tipped workers at a large national casual dining chain alleged they were owed wages. Their claims included but were not limited to: unpaid overtime, spread-of hours, misappropriated tips, uniform-related expenses and unlawful deductions.
The firm was able to recover overtime compensation for personal bankers and others similarly situated at a national bank that operates hundreds of branches throughout the United States. Employees in affected positions claimed they were required to work more than 40 hours a week in order to meet sales quotas but were not compensated overtime for their pay.
Fitapelli & Schaffer was able to recover damages for recipients of unwanted promotional text messages from a popular young adult clothing retailer. The clothing company allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending text messages to recipients’ cellular phones without their prior express written consent.
The firm was able to recover overtime compensation for loan officers at a national bank that operates more than hundreds of branches nationwide. Employees in affected positions claimed they were required to work more than 40 hours a week in order to meet sales goals but were not compensated overtime for their pay.
One of the largest auto dealerships in the NYC Metropolitan Area agreed to pay owed wages to its car salesmen. The company was accused of failing to pay salesmen the proper minimum wage, overtime pay, commissions, and made unlawful deductions from their earned wages in violation of federal labor laws.
Even though personal bankers at this nationwide bank were classified as exempt from receiving overtime pay, the company routinely required them to work in excess of 40 hours per week. There are federal laws that help protect workers from misclassification and in this situation; Fitapelli & Schaffer was able to recover unpaid overtime for personal bankers throughout the United States.
F&S represented entertainers at a popular gentleman’s club in New York City that claimed the club failed to pay them the proper wages. The entertainers were able to recover owed wages that included unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, spread-of-hours pay, unlawfully retained tips, unlawful deductions, and uniform-related expenses.
Tipped workers alleged that a Mexican Michelin rated restaurant with 17 locations denied them overtime pay, minimum wages, and call-in pay. Our firm was able to recover wages for these tipped employees that included servers, bussers, bartenders, food runners and barbacks.
Fitapelli & Schaffer successfully recovered unpaid overtime for assistant managers on a salary at a bank with locations nationwide. The salaried workers argued that they were wrongfully classified as exempt from receiving overtime when working over 40 hours per week.
The fast food chain allegedly misclassified its assistant managers as salaried workers and considered them exempt from receiving overtime pay when working over 40 hours per week. Fitapelli & Schaffer was able to recover overtime compensation for all of the popular fast food chains’ assistant managers nationwide, with the exception of California.
Fitapelli & Schaffer was able to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime, spread-of hours, and unlawful deductions for tipped restaurant workers at a popular dining chain. Affected workers included servers, bussers, runners bartenders, barbacks and other tipped workers.
proper minimum wage and overtime. Fitapelli & Schaffer helped the workers recover owed wages to the following positions: servers, bussers, bartenders, and other tipped workers under federal and state labor laws.
Fitapelli & Schaffer was able to successfully recover unpaid overtime for loan officers at a nationwide bank that operates over one thousand locations across the United States. Loan officers for the company alleged that even though they were hourly employees and consistently worked over 40 hours per week they were working off the clock and not getting overtime pay.
A New York based health insurance provider allegedly had its health care workers working over 40 hours per week but required they submit weekly timesheets that only showed they worked 37.5 hours. Fitapelli & Schaffer was able to successfully recover compensation for unpaid wages, overtime and spread of hours pay.
This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.
Please do not send documents or include any confidential or sensitive information in this form. This form sends information by non-encrypted e-mail which is not secure.
Submitting this form does not create a lawyer/client relationship.
Do you agree with the terms?AGREE DISAGREE