Motorola 2006 Annual Report Download - page 33

25
Item 3: Legal Proceedings
Personal Injury Cases
Cases relating to Wireless Telephone Usage
On May 26, 2000, a purported nationwide class action suit Naquin, et al., v. Nokia Mobile Phones, et al. was
filed against Motorola and several other cellular phone manufacturers and carriers in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The case alleges the failure to incorporate a remote headset into cellular
phones rendered the phones defective by exposing users to biological injury and health risks and plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and injunctive relief. Similar state class action suits were filed on April 19, 2001, in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Pinney and Colonell v. Nokia, Inc. et al., and in the Pennsylvania
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Farina v. Nokia, Inc., et al.; and on April 20, 2001, in the Supreme
Court of the Sate of New York, County of Bronx, Gilliam et al., v. Nokia, Inc., et al. During 2001, after removal
to federal court, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (""MDL Panel'') transferred the above four 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'').
The Pinney and Gilliam plaintiffs dismissed these cases without prejudice in April and March 2006,
respectively. On November 6, 2006, plaintiffs dismissed the Naquin case without prejudice.
In 2005, as a result of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Farina case
was remanded to Pennsylvania state courts from which it was removed. In late 2005 and early 2006, Plaintiffs in
Farina amended their complaints to add allegations that cellular telephones sold without headsets are defective
because they present a safety risk when used while driving and to seek punitive damages. Farina also seeks
declaratory relief and treble and statutory damages. After the Farina complaint was amended, on February 17,
2006, a newly-added defendant to the Farina case removed the case to federal court. As of June 15, 2006, the
MDL Panel formally transferred the newly-removed Farina case to the MDL Court. On November 10, 2006,
defendants moved to dismiss Farina and filed a motion for referral to the FCC. On November 10, 2006, plaintiff
moved to remand Farina to state court. Plaintiff also filed an alternative motion for suggestion of remand to the
transferor court in Philadelphia. All Farina motions are pending before the MDL 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. That motion is still pending. On February 15, 2006, the MDL Court
remanded Brower to California state court. The California state court set a deadline of January 19, 2007, for the
filing of an amended complaint. To date, no amended complaint has been filed.