Case 9:25-cv-80032-AMC Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2025 Page 1 of 2 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8N09 Angela E. Noble .

Finally, all parties are advised that mere designation of material as confidential and/or otherwise subject to a protective order does not bind the Court, does not supplant the requirements of the Local Rules onsealing, and does not otherwise relieve the party seeking sealing/redaction from justifying its request under applicable legal principals governing the presumption of public accessto civil proceedings.Failure to comply with this Notice may result in immediate unsealing of any unauthorized shielded material.

On or before February21, 2025, Defendants shall file a single combined response or separate answers to Plaintiff's Complaint in accordance with the Court's Order RequiringCombined Responses8 .

(bbk) (Entered: 02/11/2025) 02/12/2025 MOTIONMotion to Approve Stipulation for Substitution of Counselfor Defendants Ric-Man Construction, Inc., Ric-Man Detroit, Inc., and Stevén Mancini re 13

(ebz) (Entered: 02/13/2025) 21|RESPONSEin Opposition e15 Plaintiffs MOTION to Remandto State Court and 02/21/2025 Incorporated Memorandum ofLaw / Defendants’ RCI, RDI, Mancini Enterprises,

and E.R.’s (both minors) Agreed Motion to Seal or Redact Sensitive Information (“Agreed Motion”).

The Clerk is directed to seal or redact the subject pleading and court filings outlined in the Agreed Motion.

All parties are directed to comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425(a)

Case No. 50-2024-CA-011891-XXXA-MB (1) and must identify the minor children defendants only by their initials in all court filings.

The Court will modify the case style by replacing the minor children defendants names with their initials as exemplified in the above-styled case.

SOLUTIONS, INC., and KARMAN

This matter came before the Court upon JoJo’s Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”).

With the Court being fully advised in the premises, and noting the agreement of the parties, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

The deadline for Defendant JoJo Limited Partnership to timely respond to the First Amended Complaint is extended through and including March 7, 2025.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Palm Beach County, Florida this ___ day of February 2025.

Palm BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Katherine Radetich’s Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint for Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers and Related Relief (“Motion”).

The Court, having reviewed the Motion, and being otherwise duly advised, it is hereby: ORDERED as follows:

The deadline for Defendant Katherine Radetich to timely respond to the First Amended Complaint is extended through and including March 14, 2025.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Mala Rokada, L.P.’s Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint for Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers and Related Relief (the “Motion”).

The Court, having reviewed the Motion, and being otherwise duly advised, it is hereby: ORDERED as follows:

The Motion is GRANTED.

The deadline for Defendant, Mala Rokada, L.P., to timely respond to the First Amended Complaint is extended through and including March 7, 2025.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Palm Beach County, Florida, this _____ day of February 2025.

... provided that a party is not required to provide computations as to noneconomic damages, but the party must identify categories of damages claimed and provide supporting documents ...

THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court upon the Unopposed Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.510 of Alan A. Greenberg, Esq. as counsel for Judgment Creditors, Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC, Advantage Sales & Marketing Inc., Karman Intermediate Corp., Advantage Solutions Inc. and Karman Topco L.P. (collectively “ Judgment Creditors”) and the Court being advised that there is no objection to this Motion, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1.

Alan A. Greenberg, Esq. of the law firm of Greenberg Gross LLP is granted leave to appear pro hac vice as counsel for the Judgment Creditors in all aspects of this litigation.

However, the Court reserves the right to revoke this status if counsel’s schedule or location out of state causes difficulty in scheduling hearings before the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Scott B. Cosgrove LEÓN COSGROVE JIMÉNEZ, LLP Counsel for Plaintiffs Page 1 of 3

THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court upon the Unopposed Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.510 of Roy Fan, Esq. as counsel for Judgment Creditors, Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC, Advantage Sales & Marketing Inc., Karman Intermediate Corp., Advantage Solutions Inc. and Karman Topco L.P. (collectively “ Judgment Creditors”) and the Court being advised that there is no objection to this Motion, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1.

Roy Fan, Esq. of the law firm of Greenberg Gross LLP is granted leave to appear pro hac vice as counsel for the Judgment Creditors in all aspects of this litigation.

However, the Court reserves the right to revoke this status if counsel’s schedule or location out of state causes difficulty in scheduling hearings before the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Scott B. Cosgrove LEÓN COSGROVE JIMÉNEZ, LLP Counsel for Plaintiffs

THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court upon the Unopposed Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.510 of Evan C. Borges, Esq. as counsel for Judgment Creditors, Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC, Advantage Sales & Marketing Inc., Karman Intermediate Corp., Advantage Solutions Inc. and Karman Topco L.P. (collectively “ Judgment Creditors”) and the Court being advised that there is no objection to this Motion, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1.

Evan C. Borges, Esq. of the law firm of Greenberg Gross LLP is granted leave to appear pro hac vice as counsel for the Judgment Creditors in all aspects of this litigation.

However, the Court reserves the right to revoke this status if counsel’s schedule or location out of state causes difficulty in scheduling hearings before the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Scott B. Cosgrove LEÓN COSGROVE JIMÉNEZ, LLP Counsel for Plaintiffs Page 1 of 3

But, as stipulated by the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee, the selected claims in the complaint turned on threshold issues common to the entire action, such that its dismissal would “resolve this litigation in its entirety, regardless of additional specific examples of wrongful conduct.” Trademark infringement arising out of the same facts as alleged in the streamlined complaint is quintessentially an “additional specific example of wrongful conduct.” And NPI does not contest the Committee’s authority to propose such a disposition.

It's not like the streamlined complaint was a product of some clandestine scheme; the complaint’s purpose was repeatedly discussed at status conferences and on the public docket.

The Supreme Court has made clear that a Lanham Act suit is precluded when it is “inconsistent” with an agency’s “policy judgment.” POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102, 120 (2014); see also Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).

Although the Second Circuit has held that a Lanham Act false-advertising claim can challenge information on a drug’s label that “renders [an] advertisement literally or implicitly false,” even when the FDA has approved the label, see Church & Dwight Co. v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics, GmBH, 843 F.3d 48, 73 n.13 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Apotex Inc. v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., 823 F.3d 51, 64 n.10 (2d Cir. 2016), Congress straightforwardly delegated the exclusive authority to determine whether a drug is effective to the FDA, and it was therefore not “false” to state that oral phenylephrine is an effective nasal decongestant.

It sat idly by while the parties moved for, and the Court ultimately appointed, lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

Calendar Call on Zoom/Virtual Defendant(s) ______________________________________/ THIS CAUSE is hereby set for jury trial before the undersigned Judge at the Dade County Courthouse, 73 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33130, Room _________ for the ____ week period commencing: _______________________________, or as soon thereafter as the same may be heard.

(Zoom provided by Judicial Assistant) All attorneys appearing at the Calendar Call shall be thoroughly familiar with the cause and be prepared to consider and determine such matters as are set forth in Fla. R. Civ.

You will receive an email from the Court with the information you need to connect to your event by video or phone if you are on the E- Filing Portal service list.

administration of this matter, they are encouraged to meet and develop a joint stipulated order and/or set a case management conference pursuant to Fla. R. Civ.

Please contact Aliean Simpkins, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court’s ADA Coordinator, Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center, 175 NW 1st Ave., Suite 2400, Miami, FL 33128, Telephone (305)

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order to Appear on the intent to dismiss for lack of prosecution, in accordance with Rule 1.420(e), Fla.R.Civ.P., and the Party(ies) having been timely and properly noticed for the hearing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: [X] The case shall REMAIN PENDING.

The Court finds that the Party(ies) appeared and affirmatively established at least one of the five grounds set forth below:

There had been record activity within ten (10) months prior to service of this Notice and Order to Appear; or A stay of the action was in effect within the ten (10) months prior to service of this Notice and Order to Appear; or There has been record activity within sixty (60) days immediately following the service of this Notice and Order to Appear; or The Court issued a stay of the action within sixty (60) days immediately following the service of this Notice and Order to Appear; or At least five (5) days before the hearing, the party opposing the dismissal established good cause, in writing, for the action to remain pending.

[_] The case is DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.

The Court finds that the Party(ies) failed to affirmatively establish at least one of the five grounds set forth above.