Motorola 2005 Annual Report Download - page 35

28
Pinney and Colonell v. Nokia, Inc., et al. and in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
Farina v. Nokia, Inc., et al.; on April 20, 2001, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx,
Gilliam et al., v. Nokia, Inc., et al.; and on June 8, 2001, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia,
Gimpelson v. Nokia Inc, et. al.
During 2001, after removal to federal court, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (""MDL Panel'')
transferred these five cases to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the ""MDL Court'') for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the matter called In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency
Emissions Products Liability Litigation (the ""MDL Proceeding''). In 2005, as a result of a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Pinney, Gilliam, Farina and Gimpelson cases were remanded to
the state courts from which they were removed (Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, respectively).
The Fourth Circuit decision also reversed the MDL Court's dismissal of the Naquin case on preemption grounds.
Naquin was remanded to the MDL Court for further proceedings.
On December 23, 2005, and again on February 9, 2006, plaintiff filed amended complaints in Farina.
Defendants filed preliminary objections to the amended complaints. On January 31, 2006, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint in Pinney. Both amended complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief. Farina also seeks declaratory relief and treble and statutory damages. For the first time plaintiffs in both
Farina and Pinney added allegations that cellular telephones sold without headsets are defective because they
present a safety risk when used while driving. On February 17, 2006, a newly added defendant to the Farina and
Pinney cases removed the cases to federal court. Motorola asserted additional grounds for the Pinney removal in
papers filed on February 22, 2006. On January 30, 2006, plaintiff dismissed Gimpelson without prejudice.
On February 15, 2006, the MDL Court issued a suggestion to the MDL Panel to transfer Naquin from the
MDL Court to the federal court in Louisiana. On February 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion to reconsider that
suggestion based on the removal of Farina and Pinney to the federal court.
During 2001 and 2002, several additional cases were filed alleging that use of a cellular phone caused a
malignant brain tumor: Murray v. Motorola, Inc., et al., filed November 15, 2001, in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia; Agro et. al., v. Motorola, Inc., et al., filed February 26, 2002, in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia; Cochran et. al., v. Audiovox Corporation, et al., filed February 26, 2002, in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia and Schofield et. al., v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, et al., filed
February 26, 2002, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Each complaint seeks compensatory damages
in excess of $25 million, consequential damages in excess of $25 million and punitive and/or exemplary damages in
excess of $100 million. These cases were removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL Court. On July 19,
2004, the MDL Court found that there was no federal court jurisdiction over Murray, Agro, Cochran and Schofield
and remanded those cases to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. On November 30, 2004, defendants
moved to dismiss the Murray, Agro, Cochran and Schofield complaints. That motion remains pending before the
Superior Court for the District of Columbia.
Brower v. Motorola, Inc., et al., filed April 19, 2001, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego, also seeks relief on behalf of an individual who had brain cancer. A first amended complaint was
filed in Brower to add class allegations that defendants engaged in deceptive and misleading actions by falsely
stating that cellular phones are safe and by failing to disclose studies that allegedly show cellular phones can cause
harm. Brower seeks injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages and disgorgement of profits.
On September 9, 2002, Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed in the D.C. Superior Court containing class
claims similar to Brower. Dahlgren seeks injunctive and equitable relief, actual damages, treble or statutory
damages, punitive damages and a constructive trust. These two cases were also removed to federal court and
transferred to the MDL Court. On June 10, 2005, the Dahlgren case was remanded to the Superior Court for the
District of Columbia. On December 9, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Dahlgren. Defendants moved
to dismiss Dahlgren on February 3, 2006. On February 15, 2006, the MDL Court remanded Brower to California
state court.
Case relating to Two-Way Radio Usage
On January 23, 2004, Motorola was added as a co-defendant with New York City in Virgilio et al. v.
Motorola et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege
that twelve firefighters died because the Motorola two-way radios they were using on September 11, 2001 were
defective and did not receive evacuation orders because the City of New York and Motorola committed wrongful
acts in connection with a bid process that was designed to provide new radios to the New York City Fire