Breaking News: Zimmerman Reed and Robins Kaplan are privileged to represent the State of Minnesota in its litigation against e-cigarette manufacturer, JUUL, for deceptively marketing its tobacco products and targeting Minnesota’s youth.
The Office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed the complaint on behalf of the State, seeking to prevent JUUL from engaging in further deceptive actions and to recover costs for the damage JUUL has inflicted on the State and its citizens. The filing was announced at the State Capitol by Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, along with educators and governmental agencies, including the Department of Health, that support this important step.
More information about the State’s lawsuit can be found here.
Zimmerman Reed’s Public Client practice provides legal services to governmental and public entities, including municipalities, public retirement systems, and state attorneys general. Our firm brings a wealth of experience in representing these entities. And our proven record in litigating complex cases in a wide range of practice areas—including antitrust, consumer protection, health care, and securities and investment fraud—makes us uniquely qualified to advise and represent governmental and public entities. We also understand the public policy issues that inform the debate surrounding litigation by governmental and public entities. As such, we dedicate significant focus and resources to the assessment and investigation phase prior to litigation and have the resources to vigorously pursue those cases to trial or positive resolution.
Our successful public sector representation extends to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a 9-0 win. The firm represented the State of Mississippi in an antitrust case involving LCD manufacturers that was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. On January 14, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Mississippi, holding that a state attorney general’s parens patriae action is not removable to federal court as a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act. Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics, 571 U.S. 161 (2014). The case was described by commentators as “Arguably the State AG case of the year.” The Supreme Court decision has significant implications for all state attorneys general by foreclosing defendants in large enforcement actions from removing state cases to federal court as mass actions, a practice that corporate defendants had routinely attempted prior to this decision.
Our firm brings a wealth of experience in representing state and governmental entities and a proven record in litigating complex cases. The following are some of the cases we have been privileged to work on:
Opioid Litigation: Currently representing the states of Indiana and Vermont in their investigation of and litigation against entities responsible for the deceptive marketing and sale of opioids.
Navient Student Lending: Representing the State of Mississippi in litigation against Navient and Sallie Mae Bank, alleging deceptive and unfair lending practices in the origination and servicing of student loans directed at the State’s student loan borrowers.
Visa Interchange Fees: Represented the State of New Mexico in an action alleging that Visa and MasterCard violated state consumer protection and antitrust laws by engaging in deceptive conduct related to their debit and credit card fees.
LCD Price Fixing: Working with a coalition of attorneys general offices from Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and South Carolina. Represented the State of Mississippi, asserting consumer fraud and antitrust claims, and challenging the removability of a State’s case under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Google: Represented an Attorney General’s office in a case brought by Google, involving the legality and enforceability of a Civil Investigative Demand issued by the Attorney General.
MTBE Water Contamination: Represented numerous municipalities in the MTBE Water Contamination Litigation, to recover damages caused by contaminated groundwater.
Wells Fargo: Represented a public pension fund in a case involving Wells Fargo Bank, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and consumer fraud regarding the bank’s securities lending program.
Medtronic Securities Litigation: Represented a public employees’ pension fund in a case alleging violations of securities laws in issuing false and misleading statements.