Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
IN RE: Monat Hair Care Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Case Number:
1:18-md-02841
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action, Multi-district Litigation
Judge:
Firms
- Abbott Nicholson
- Andersen Sleater
- Cantey Hanger
- Clarke Silverglate
- Clark Newberry Law Firm
- Colson Hicks
- DiCello Levitt
- Federman & Sherwood
- Goldberg Kohn
- Haas & Goldstein
- Handley Farah
- Hartline Barger
- Heise Suarez
- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
- Lockridge Grindal
- Luks Santaniello
- McDonald Carano
- Morgan & Morgan
- Pacheco & Neach
- Procopio Cory
- Saul Ewing
- Saxena White
- Stroock & Stroock
- Varnell & Warwick
- Zimmerman Reed
-
October 24, 2019
Hair Products Maker Can't Brush Off Balding MDL Claims
A Florida federal judge has told hair products maker Monat Global Corp. that it must face most of the allegations in multidistrict litigation alleging that its hair treatments caused skin irritation and its users' hair to fall out.
-
February 05, 2019
Hair Products Maker Says MDL Is Thin On Proof Of Balding
Hair products manufacturer Monat Global Corp. moved Monday to dismiss the consolidated class complaint in multidistrict litigation in Florida alleging the company's products cause skin irritation and hair loss, arguing the plaintiffs have no evidence to back up their claims.