Guam joins lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies for illegal price increases of over 100 generic drugs
The Office of the Attorney General of Guam announced on Nov. 20 that the AG has joined a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies that are alleged to have secretly conspired to artificially inflate and manipulate the prices of more than 100 generic medications ranging from antibiotics and anti-inflammatory creams to medication used to treat cancer, diabetes and epilepsy. In some cases, prices increased more than 1,000%.
Along with increasing barriers to access for individuals in need, the complaint alleges these practices also affected the health insurance market and taxpayer-funded healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
The lawsuit, which is led by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, includes 51 other attorneys general along with Attorney General Leevin T. Camacho.
Superior Court issues summary judgment decision in Aqua Breeze Inc. vs Tai’s Bros. Corp.
The Superior Court of Guam on Nov. 25 granted Aqua Breeze Inc.’s motion for a summary judgment on Tai’s Bros. Corp.’s claims against Aqua Breeze and Blue Ocean Sports Guam Inc.
In June 2016, Tai’s Bros. and Blue Ocean entered into an automobile lease agreement for four years. Tai’s Bros. filed against the defendants claiming Aqua had allegedly returned the vehicles to Tai’s Bros., changed its name from Blue Ocean to Aqua Breeze Inc., and failed to make payments for June and July 2018.
Aqua Breeze filed a response, asserting that Aqua Breeze is not a successor in interest to Blue Ocean or to any entity. Aqua Breeze argues Blue Ocean is the responsible party for plaintiff’s damage. Aqua Breeze filed its motion to summary judgment on Aug. 23, and Tai’s Bros. did not oppose.
The court subsequently granted the motion because Aqua Breeze established there is no genuine issue of material fact, and Tai’s Bros. did not submit specific facts that warrant a trial.
Superior Court grants partial summary judgement for Olivia T. Cruz
On Nov. 25, the Superior Court of Guam granted partial summary judgement to Olivia T. Cruz on two issues in her case against George V. Cruz and Guahan Academy Charter School.
Olivia Cruz filed against the defendants because George Cruz recorded entering into a warranty deed between himself and the Department of Land Management with land George Cruz previously conveyed to her unrecorded. However, Attorney Ray Haddock, Olivia Cruz’s son, claims that the DLM knew about his mother’s interest in the property when signing the deed.
The issues up for judgement were whether the unrecorded deed between George Cruz and Olivia Cruz is valid, genuine, and properly executed as a matter of law; whether GACS paid George Cruz in accordance with Olivia Cruz’s verified complaint; and whether GACS and George Cruz are liable to Olivia Cruz on the unrecorded deed.
The court granted summary judgement to the first two issues, and denied judgement for the third in that there are questions about the material facts.
Guam Superior Court issues decision on Gino’s vs. Paul’s motions in limine
The Guam Superior Court on Nov. 6 issued its decision on motions filed by Korasan LLC — which does business as Moda Gino’s — and Paul’s Guam Inc., Pichet “Paul” Sachdej and Amarjit “Jim” Sachdev.
Korasan sued the defendant for trademark infringement, violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and tortious interference with contracts and economic expectancy for selling school uniforms with trademarked logos Korasan alleges it has sole license to sell.
The defendant filed motions to exclude documents introduced by Korasan after discovery closed and to exclude a supplemental expert report introduced by Korasan, both of which were denied. The defendant also filed a motion to exclude three witnesses, which the court granted — except for the authentication of documents disclosed prior to the close of discovery — but denied their motion to exclude two of the witnesses from trial. Korasan filed a motion to preclude the defendant from introducing evidence related to their damages that they have not already disclosed and to strike the defendant’s affirmative defense seeking damages under the recoupment doctrine from it answer, both of which were granted.
The court granted the defendant’s demand for a jury trial but denied their demand for a 12-person jury. Trial is to be set at a later date.
Motion to strike AG’s appearance denied in Guam Power Inc. vs. GEDA
The Superior Court of Guam on Nov. 18 denied Guam Power Inc.’s motion to strike the appearance of the Office of the Attorney General in its suit against the government of Guam and the Guam Economic Development Authority.
The Attorney General of Guam withdrew representation of the defendants on a conflict basis, to be replaced by attorney Sandra Cruz Miller, who then withdrew her representation as well. Assistant Attorney General David J. Highsmith entered his appearance for the government and GEDA, which the plaintiff then moved to strike on the basis that Cruz’s withdrawal was not served upon plaintiff’s counsel, the AG’s office will likely be a witness of litigation continues, and entrance of the AG’s office will cause the case to delver further into litigation causing prejudice to the plaintiff.
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion, saying the plaintiff had not satisfied its burden in showing grounds to strike the appearance of the AG and the AG is statutorily authorized to act as counsel for the government. The court also ordered an updated on the status of ongoing mediation, with a status hearing set for Feb. 3, 2020. mbj