attorneys for plaintiff - cdxdiagnostics.com · attorneys for plaintiff 7 times square ......

Robert W. Ray James S. O'Brien, Jr. Benjamin Akley PRYOR CASHMAN LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036-6569 (212) 421-4100

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ORAL CANCER PREVENTION INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Defendants.

Plaintiff Oral Cancer Prevention International, Inc. ("OCPI"), by and through its counsel,

Pryor Cashman LLP, as and for its complaint against defendants Johnson & Johnson ("J&J") and

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. ("JJCCI" and, together, "Johnson & Johnson"),

alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Johnson & Johnson tortiously interfered with a February 5, 2010 Sales Services

Agreement (the "Sales Agreement") between OCPI and OraPharma, Inc. ("OraPharma") pursuant to

Case 3:11-cv-03878-AET -LHG Document 1 Filed 07/06/11 of 16 PageID: 1

which OraPharma obtained the exclusive right to sell OCPI's proven oral cancer prevention protocol

to dentists in the United States. Johnson & Johnson induced OraPharma to breach the Sales

Agreement to suppress sales of and withhold from the public a proven life-saving oral cancer

prevention product in order to protect sales of its mouthwash, Listerine, which has been linked to

oral cancer. The effect of that behavior, based on OraPharma's projections, is that an estimated 584

cases of otherwise preventable oral cancer in the State of New Jersey and 7,300 such cases

throughout the U.S. will occur over the term of the Sales Agreement. The number of deaths that will

result from that conduct is unknown.

THE PARTIES

2. OCPI is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Two

Executive Boulevard, Suffern, New York 10901.

3. Upon information and belief, defendant J&J is a New Jersey corporation with its

principal place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

4. Upon information and belief, defendant JJCCI is a New Jersey corporation with its

principal place of business in Skillman, New Jersey.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) because

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between a

Delaware corporation and citizens of a different state, New Jersey.

6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because defendants

2


are found in this District and significant acts giving rise to OCPI' s claims took place in this

District.

BACKGROUND

ORAL CANCER HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN DETECTED ONLY AT A LATE STAGE, WHEN SURVIVAL IS UNLIKELY

7. Oral cancer kills approximately as many people in the United States as melanoma

(skin cancer) and twice as many as cervical cancer and is about as common as all forms of leukemia

combined. It is one of the largest sources of cancer throughout Asia and is the single largest cause of

cancer deaths in India. In both the United States and Europe, oral cancer is rising sharply among

women, young people, and nonsmokers. More than 25% of U.S. oral cancer victims do not use

tobacco or abuse alcohol and have no other known risk factors. The high mortality rate for oral

cancer has not decreased over the past forty years primarily because there has been no simple test for

oral precancer and early oral cancer and, thus, this cancer historically has typically been detected

only at a late stage, when the survival rate is low.

8. Oral cancer typically starts as a small precancerous white or red spot in the mouth.

If detected at that early stage, the precancerous spot can be surgically removed and cancer is

prevented. The problem for the dentist is that such spots are extremely common, appearing in

approximately 10% of adults, and they typically are harmless.

9. While those spots most times are harmless, they contain precancerous (dysplastic)

cells in approximately 4% of cases and in approximately 20% of those cases the dysplastic cells

will develop into cancer if not removed.

10. Historically, the only proven testing protocol that could differentiate the 4% of oral

3


spots that are precancerous from the 96% that are benign was a surgical biopsy, a painful and

invasive procedure which, because of the trauma involved, is not used routinely but typically is

reserved for those advanced cases where cancer is strongly suspected, making that procedure a

particularly poor cancer prevention protocol.

OCPI'S PATENTED TESTING PROTOCOL PREVENTS CANCER AND SAVES LIVES

11. OCPI' s patented testing protocol, the OralCDx Brush Test, has made oral cancer a

potentially preventable disease.

12. The OralCDx Brush Test is a quick, painless, and inexpensive test that can prevent

oral cancer by identifying dysplastic cells in the mouth long before they turn cancerous. The

OralCDx Brush Test already has been demonstrated to save lives.

13. The OralCDx Brush Test consists of a patented brush that is used to collect cells from

the suspect site quickly and painlessly, which are then analyzed by OCPI's laboratories.

14. The OralCDx Brush Test has been recommended by the American Dental

Association ("ADA") and is the only clinically proven test for the painless early detection of

precancerous oral tissue at a stage when lives can be saved. In fact, before OCPI executed the Sales

Agreement, the ADA joined a three-year public service advertising campaign, placing ads on New

York City buses and subways to boost public awareness of oral cancer and to highlight the critical

role of the OralCDx Brush Test in preventative pre-cancer screening and detection. See Exhibit 1.

15. OralCDx is the only oral cancer screening product that the ADA has publicly

recommended and to which it has lent its name. See Exhibit 2.

16. The key to saving lives -- and to OCPI's business -- is the ability to reach and train

4


dentists to identify oral spots or lesions that should be tested with the OralCDx BrushTest and to

train the office staff in how to explain the importance of the test to their patients so that it can

become a routine screening tool to prevent cancer from developing.

17. A well-trained and effective sales force with a close relationship with the dental

market is essential to the success of the OralCDx Brush Test's becoming a routine part of dental

care.

18. In 2008 and 2009, OCPI had a four-person sales team, whose efforts generated in

excess of two thousand laboratory tests per month.

ORAPHARMA'S SALES TEAM HAD ACCESS TO THOSE DENTISTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHO WERE MOST LIKELY TO INTRODUCE ORALCDX

19. At the time that it executed the Sales Agreement, OraPharma was a wholly owned

subsidiary of J&J.

20. Upon information and belief, J&J sold OraPharma in December 2010 to Water

Street Healthcare Partners, a private equity firm in Chicago.

21. At all relevant times herein, OraPharma was reputed to have the most expertly

trained and well-managed sales force in the dental industry, with over one hundred sales

representatives.

22. By virtue of its large, well trained sales force, OraPharma had access to those

dentists and dental practices that were most likely to introduce OralCDx.

23. At all relevant times herein, OraPharma's primary product was Arestin, a locally

administered antibiotic applied by dentists to treat periodontal disease.

24. By 2010, OraPharma's sales representatives were selling Arestin to approximately

5


50,000 dentists, with 20,000 of those dentists making 80% of the purchases.

25. Upon information and belief, sales of Arestin in 2010 generated approximately $90

million in revenue for OraPharma.

26. OraPharma's sales representatives "detail" Arestin to dentists, meaning that each

Arestin salesperson has detailed knowledge of all information concerning that product including

studies, test results, and proper usages.

27. The OraPharma salespeople also detailed Listerine to the dentists on whom they

called, in an effort to get the dentists to recommend it to their customers.

28. Listerine is an immensely important product to Johnson & Johnson, with annual

sales in the United States reported to be in excess of $1 billion.

29. Commencing in December 2008 and continuing throughout 2009, OraPharma's

president, Russ Sector, lobbied OCPI to become the exclusive sales representative for OralCDx,

emphasizing the specialized experience that OraPharma's sales representatives had in educating

dentists on treating oral soft tissue, noting that Arestin, Listerine and OralCDx all deal primarily

with oral soft tissue.

30. Sector told OCPI that the dentists with whom OraPharma's sales representatives had

developed their best sales relationships would be the dentists most likely to introduce OralCDx into

their practices and that based upon OraPharma's market testing with its top Arestin/Listerine

customers, he was optimistic that sales of OralCDx could far surpass those of Arestin. Indeed,

OraPharma's sales projections indicated that selling OralCDx would double OraPharma's revenues.

31. By December 2009, OCPI and OraPharma had reached an understanding on the

final terms of an agreement pursuant to which OraPharma was to receive the exclusive right to

6


market OralCDx.

32. Word of that pending agreement spread in the dental industry; the pairing of the

dental industry's leading sales force with the only proven oral cancer prevention product

promoted by the American Dental Association was a significant and widely anticipated event in

the dental industry.

33. On the evening of December 16, 2009, however, when OCPI was told to stand by

to receive the signed agreement at OraPharma's instructions, OCPI was suddenly informed that

the Listerine division of J&J, which had just learned of the imminent signing of the agreement

with OCPI, had prevailed upon J&J management to direct OraPharma to not execute it.

LISTERINE IS LINKED TO ORAL CANCER

34. James Murphy, Vice-President of J&J's Consumer Products Division ("Murphy"),

told OCPI CEO Mark Rutenberg ("Rutenberg") that J&J was extremely concerned about the

implications of a study published in Australia that linked oral cancer to mouthwashes with a high

alcohol content.

35. That study, by Professor Michael McCollough and Dr. Camile Farah, published in

the Dental Journal of Australia in 2008, linked mouthwashes containing high levels of alcohol to

an increased risk of oral cancer, and recommended that such mouthwashes be restricted to short

term medical use or replaced with alcohol-free versions. Upon information and belief, Listerine

has the highest alcohol content of any over the counter mouthwash. See Exhibit 3.

36. Upon information and belief, sales of Listerine in Australia dropped by

approximately 50% following the release of the Australian study.

7


37. Murphy told Rutenberg that Johnson & Johnson was leery of highlighting the risk of

oral cancer and was worried that if OraPharma were to sell both Listerine and OralCDx, it would

lend credence to the link between Listerine and oral cancer and could be construed as a tacit

acknowledgment by Johnson & Johnson of the validity of the conclusions of the Australian oral

cancer study.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON LAUNCHES ALCOHOL-FREE

"LISTERINE ZERO" TO ADDRESS THE ORAL CANCER LINKAGE

38. What Johnson & Johnson failed to disclose to OCPI -- and what OCPI did not learn

until discovering it in a store six months after entering the Sales Contract -- was that as a result of the

2008 Australian study, Johnson & Johnson secretly had been planning during 2009 to launch a new

alcohol-free mouthwash called "Listerine Zero" and was concerned that a nearly simultaneous sales

launch by OraPharma of Listerine Zero and the OralCDx Brush Test could lead to professional and

public awareness of the true oral cancer motivation behind Listerine Zero and thus depress sales of

the other versions of Listerine.

39. Upon information and belief, Listerine Zero was developed and introduced by

Johnson & Johnson primarily as an alternative Listerine product that would preserve the Listerine

brand and its substantial revenues in the event ordinary Listerine were to suffer from a public

perception linking mouthwashes containing alcohol to oral cancer.

40. Listerine Zero was carefully branded to conceal the fact that it was developed

primarily in response to the Australian mouthwash oral cancer study and the subsequent sales drop

in Listerine's Australian sales. The advertising for that product makes no mention of the fact that it

may reduce the risks associated with mouthwashes containing alcohol and instead emphasizes only

8


its "less intense" flavor. See Exhibit 4.

41. Although Johnson & Johnson forced OraPharma to hold off executing the Sales

Agreement, news of its anticipated signing already had generated widespread interest in the dental

industry.

42. In early February 2010, Murphy contacted Rutenberg to inform him that Johnson &

Johnson's upper management had decided to allow OraPharma to execute the sales agreement partly

because Johnson & Johnson's management realized that in light of the widespread anticipation of the

Sales Agreement by the dental industry, Johnson & Johnson's blocking OraPharma's execution of

the Sales Agreement would generate exactly the publicity regarding the oral cancer risk of Listerine

that Johnson & Johnson sought to avoid.

43. Although Murphy requested that the Sales Agreement be modified to reflect a phased

roll out of OralCDx to test its effect on Listerine sales, OCPI declined that request and Johnson &

Johnson agreed that OraPharma would be allowed to exercise its required diligent efforts to sell

OralCDx through all of its dental salespeople to all of its dentist customers following a short sales

training period not to exceed four months from execution of the Agreement. That representation was

false.

44. OraPharma and OCPI executed the Sales Agreement on February 5, 2010

45. By email dated March 11, 2010, Murphy informed Rutenberg that the OraPharma

sales training period had been completed to its satisfaction and that OraPharma would therefore

launch its OralCDx sales efforts on March 15, 2010. That statement was false.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CAUSES ORAPHARMA TO BREACH THE SALES AGREEMENT

9


46. Upon information and belief, Johnson & Johnson never had any intention of allowing

OraPharma to sell OralCDx to those dentists most likely to adopt its use in their practices, but only

allowed OraPharma to enter into the Sales Agreement as a means to control and suppress sales of

OralCDx to those dentists who J&J considered most likely to recommend the use of Listerine

mouthwash to their patients, thereby depriving the public of a known cancer prevention product and

destroying OCPI's dental business.

47. As required by the Sales Agreement, OraPharma forwarded to OCPI in March

2010 a detailed sales forecast, of its future sales of OralCDx, consisting of low end' and 'high

end' projections, which OraPharma created based on surveys of their best customers, i.e. those

OraPharma customers they knew to be most likely to purchase Arestin and recommend a

mouthwash to their patients.

48. Those projections stated that OraPharma "plans on committing its 100+ person

national sales force to the sales of OCPI's OralCDx product."

49. OraPharma's low-end projections called for one-third of all dentists to whom

OralCDx was marketed to become users of this product within a six month period, with an

average testing rate of 6.6 tests per adopting dentist per month, with more than ninety-eight

thousand tests to be performed within the first year of the Agreement and more than four hundred

and thirty-eight thousand tests to be performed during the second year.

50. Based upon its low-end projections, OraPharma insisted that the OCPI laboratories be

prepared to handle at least 20,000 tests per month within six months of signing the Agreement.

51. In reliance on Johnson & Johnson's representations that it would allow OraPharma to

10


use its entire sales force to market OralCDx to its top dentist customers and in response to its

demand that OCPI increase its laboratories' testing capacities, OCPI raised over $5M in both debt

and equity and spent more than $2 million to purchase laboratory equipment and to hire and train

new doctors and employees to handle the minimum of 20,000 tests/month it was told to anticipate

52. After executing the Sales Agreement, OraPharma insisted, as the exclusive dental

sales agent, that OCPI not only terminate its own sales force but also terminate all of its existing

distributor relationships for the OralCDx test kit.

53. In reliance on Johnson & Johnson's representations that it would allow OraPharma to

use its entire sales force to market OralCDx to its top dentist customers, OCPI acceded to

OraPharma's demand, laid off its own sales force, and terminated its arrangements with third parties

for the distribution of the OralCDx Brush Test kit, which had generated substantial revenue,

effectively making OCPI entirely dependent upon OraPharma to market and sell the OralCDx

protocol.

54. Shortly after the Sales Agreement was executed, however, OraPharma informed

OCPI that Johnson & Johnson had instructed it to market OralCDx to only a minute percentage of its

dentist customers and, more importantly, only to those dentists who were the least likely to purchase

and use OralCDx: dentists whose practices were oriented toward providing the most basic dental

services, with little or no attention to broader soft tissue care.

55. Johnson & Johnson prohibited OraPharma's sales people from attempting to sell

OralCDx to any dentists not on the pre-selected list, and required OraPharma to inform them that

that they would receive no commission for selling OralCDx to dentists other than those pre-selected

dentists and, in fact, would be disciplined or fired for selling OralCDx to any dentists not on the list.

11


56. Johnson & Johnson's scheme to take control of OralCDx and prevent it from

becoming part of routine screening throughout the U.S. succeeded. By June 2010, OraPharma's one

hundred plus member sales team, with access to over 50,000 dentists, had made fewer than 50% of

the sales that OCPI' s four-person sales team had made in the six months preceding the Sales

Agreement.

57. Johnson & Johnson's scheme to prevent OralCDx from becoming part of routine

screening throughout the U.S. is demonstrated by the fact that the majority of OralCDx laboratory

tests that took place subsequent to signing the Sales Agreement were so-called legacy sales from

previous dental clients and were not attributable in any way to OraPharma.

58. At an OraPharma Northeast regional sales meeting in August 2010, six months after

executing the Sales Agreement, OraPharma president Russ Sector told Rutenberg that Johnson &

Johnson still objected to expanding the marketing of OralCDx beyond the limited preselected list of

dentists least likely to adopt the product.

59. OraPharma informed OCPI in or about December 2010 that an agreement had been

reached for J&J to sell OraPharma to Water Street Healthcare Partners, a private equity firm located

in Chicago.

60. At OraPharma's national sales meeting in January 2011, OraPharma's new CEO told

Rutenberg that OraPharma was still required to sell Listerine pursuant to Johnson & Johnson's

directions and OraPharma continued to limit sales of OralCDx to a small number of Dentists who

were least likely to introduce OralCDx into their practices, at Johnson& Johnson's direction. A few

weeks later OraPharma terminated the Sales Agreement.

12


FIRST COUNT

(Fraud)

61. OCPI incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

59 of this Complaint.

62. Johnson & Johnson represented that they would allow OraPharma to employ its

full sales force to access all of OraPharma's dentist customers and, more particularly, that they

would allow OraPharma to market OralCDx to those dentists who were most likely to employ the

OralCDx Brush Test as a routine screening regimen.

63. That representation was untrue when made and Johnson & Johnson knew it to be

false when they made it.

64. Johnson & Johnson made that misrepresentation in order to induce OCPI to enter

into the Sales Agreement.

65. OCPI reasonably relied on Johnson & Johnson's misrepresentations and suffered

damages thereby in an amount to be determined at trial, which amount is not less than $60

million.

66. In carrying out its fraud, Johnson & Johnson acted willfully and with an evil

purpose, warranting punitive damages in the amount of $10 million.

SECOND COUNT

(Tortious Interference With Contract)



68. OCPI and OraPharma were parties to the Sales Agreement.

13


69. Johnson & Johnson was fully aware of the existence of the Sales Agreement.

70. Johnson & Johnson intentionally caused OraPharma to breach the Sales

Agreement.

71. Johnson & Johnson's conduct was directly contrary to OraPharma's economic

interest.

72. Johnson & Johnson acted maliciously, fraudulently, and without justification.

73. As a result of Johnson & Johnson's tortious interference with contract, OCPI has

been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, which amount is not less than $60 million.

74. In tortiously interfering with the Sales Agreement, Johnson & Johnson acted

willfully and with an evil purpose, warranting punitive damages in the amount of $10 million.

THIRD COUNT (Civil Conspiracy)



76. J&J and JJCCI conspired with each other to defraud OCPI.

77. J&J and JJCCI, and each of them, pursuant to their scheme and in furtherance of

their objective, fraudulently induced OCPI to enter into the Sales Agreement.

78. As a result of Johnson & Johnson's civil conspiracy, OCPI has been damaged in an

amount to be determined at trial, which amount is not less than $60 million.

79. In conspiring to defraud OCPI, Johnson & Johnson acted willfully and with an evil

purpose, warranting punitive damages in the amount of $10 million.

WHEREFORE plaintiff Oral Cancer Prevention International, Inc. demands

14


judgment against Johnson & Johnson as follows:

A. With respect to the FIRST COUNT, damages in an amount to be determined

at trial but not less than $60 million, plus punitive damages of $10 million;

B. With respect to the SECOND COUNT, damages in an amount to be

determined at trial but not less than $60 million, plus punitive damages of $10 million;

C. With respect to the THIRD COUNT, damages in an amount to be determined

at trial but not less than $60 million, plus punitive damages of $10 million; and

for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: New York, NY July 6, 2011

PRYOR CASHMAN LLP

/s/: Robert W. Ray [email protected]

7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6569 (212) 421-4100

Attorneys for Oral Cancer

Prevention International, Inc.

15


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L. CIV. R. 11.2

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this matter is not the subject of any other

action pending in any court or of any pending arbitration or administrative proceeding.

Dated: July 6, 2011 PRYOR CASHMAN LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/: Robert W. Ray [email protected]

7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6569 Telephone: (212) 421-4100 Facsimile: (212) 326-0806

16


'kLJS 44 (Rev. 12/07, NJ 5/08) CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

ORAL CANCER PREVENTION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Suffern County, NY

(c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, Telephone Number and Email Address)

Pryor Cashman LLP Attn: Robert W. Ray

7 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

(212) 421-4100 [email protected]

DEFENDANTS

JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON

CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Middlesex County, NJ

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE

LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

0 I U.S. Government 0 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 0 1 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place

of Business In This State 0 4 X 4

[7 2 U.S. Government Defendant

X 4 Diversity

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

X 5 0 5

Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Onl

CONTRACT TORTS I ( )1( FEITURE/PENALT 'E It \NKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 610 Agriculture 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 State Reapportionment

0 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 362 Personal Injury - 0 620 Other Food & Drug 0 423 Withdrawal 0 410 Antitrust 0 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice 0 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 0 450 Commerce 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability 0 630 Liquor Laws :PROPERWRIGHTS 0 460 Deportation

&Enforcement ofJudgment Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 640 R.R. & Truck 0 820 Copyrights 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and 0 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product 0 650 Airline Regs. 0 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability 0 660 Occupational 0 840 Trademark 0 480 Consumer Credit

Student Loans 0 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 0 490 Cable/Sat TV (Excl. Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product X 370 Other Fraud 0 690 Other 0 810 Selective Service

0 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 0 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 0 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 380 Other Personal 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (1395ff) Exchange

0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act 0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer Challenge 0 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 385 Property Damage 0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410 0 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Product Liability 0 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 196 Franchise Injury & Disclosure Act 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 891 Agricultural Acts

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONERTETITIONS 0 740 Railway Labor Act FEDERAL TAX:SUITS 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act

0 210 Land Condemnation 0 441 Voting 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 893 Environmental Matters

0 220 Foreclosure 0 442 Employment Sentence 0 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act 0 871 IRS—Third Party 0 895 Freedom of Information 0 240 Torts to Land Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act 0 245 Tort Product Liability 0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 0 900Appeal of Fee Determination 0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other 0 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access

Employment 0 550 Civil Rights 0 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice 0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 0 950 Constitutionality of

Other 0 465 Other Immigration State Statutes 0 440 Other Civil Rights Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

CR 1 Original 0 2 Removed from [7 3 Remanded from Proceeding State Court Appellate Court

Ci 4 Reinstated or Q 5 Reopened

Transferred from another district (specify)

0 6 Multidistrict Q 7 Litigation

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 28 USU 1332

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION traud, tortious interterence with contract, civil conspiracy

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 70,000,000.00

(See instructions): JUDGE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: a Yes 0 No

DOCKET NUMBER

Explanation:

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

07/06/2011 /s/ Robert W. Ray

Case 3:11-cv-03878-AET -LHG Document 1-1 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 17

attorneys for plaintiff - cdxdiagnostics.com · attorneys for plaintiff 7 times square ......

Documents