In September 2019, a putative class action on behalf of a consumer and three orthodontists was brought against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ciccio, et al. v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.). The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty, false advertising under the Lanham Act, common law fraud, and various state consumer protection statutes relating to the Company's advertising. Following a proactive voluntary dismissal by the majority of consumer plaintiffs, one consumer has since sought to rejoin the Middle District of Tennessee litigation or, in the alternative, to intervene, which the Court granted. That ruling has been appealed, and the Court stayed the consumer claims pending the appeal. On June 25, 2021, the appellate court reversed the district court and remanded with instructions to order the intervening plaintiff to mandatory binding arbitration. On September 20, 2022, the administrative AAA arbitrator confirmed that the consumer claims are subject to binding arbitration on an individual basis. All remaining consumer claims remain stayed. On October 13, 2021, the Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order, effectively staying merits discovery on the provider plaintiff claims, and setting deadlines of March 30, 2022, to complete class certification fact discovery and September 2, 2022, to complete briefing on motions regarding class certification. Class certification fact discovery was substantially completed on March 30, 2022 with the briefing on class certification currently stayed pending further discovery being sought by the Company. The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to defend against this action vigorously.
From September to December 2019, a number of purported stockholder class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and in state courts in Tennessee, Michigan, and New York against the Company, members of the Company's board of directors, certain of its current or former officers, and the underwriters of its IPO. The following complaints have been filed to date: Mancour v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court filed 9/27/19), Vang v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2316 (TN Circuit Court filed 9/30/19), Fernandez v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2371 (TN Circuit Court filed 10/4/19), Wei Wei v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-1254-III (TN Chancery Court filed 10/18/19), Andre v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-12883 (E.D. Mich. filed 10/2/19), Ginsberg v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-09794 (S.D.N.Y. filed 10/23/19), Franchi v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-962 (M.D. Tenn. filed 10/29/19), Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-177527-CB (Oakland County, MI Circuit Court filed 10/30/19), Sasso v. Katzman, et al., No. 657557/2019 (NY Supreme Court filed 12/18/19), Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., No. 652603/2020 (Supreme Ct. N.Y. Cty. filed June 19, 2020). The complaints all allege, among other things, that the registration statement filed with the SEC on August 16, 2019, and accompanying amendments, and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on September 13, 2019, in connection with the Company's initial public offering were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. All the actions are in the preliminary stages. The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and is vigorously defending against these actions.
In December 2019, the Fernandez, Vang, Mancour and Wei Wei actions were consolidated and re-captioned In re SmileDirectClub, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19-1169-IV (Davidson County, TN Chancery Court). Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on December 20, 2019, and Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action on February 10, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the court denied that motion. Defendants subsequently moved for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal of that decision. On June 22, 2020, the court granted that motion. On August 3, 2020, Defendants filed an application for interlocutory appeal with the court of appeals, which was denied. On September 21, 2020, Defendants filed an application for interlocutory appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court, which was denied. On October 2, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for class certification, which Defendants opposed on January 25, 2021. On April 28, 2021, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs class certification. The Company filed its notice of appeal on May 4, 2021. That appeal was fully briefed as of October 6, 2021. All trial court proceedings are stayed during the pendency of the appeal. On March 18, 2022, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the Plaintiff's Section 12(a)(2) claims but affirmed the grant of certification. On October 24, 2022, Plaintiffs in the Franchi action described below moved to intervene in this action, and their motion was denied on December 6, 2022. The case is currently in discovery and the deadline for completion of fact discovery is June 13, 2023.
The Andre and Ginsberg actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where they were consolidated with the Franchi action. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 21, 2020, and Defendants moved to dismiss the action on March 23, 2020. That motion remains pending. While that motion was pending, the parties stipulated to allow Plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint, which Plaintiffs filed on March 31, 2021. Defendants' motion to dismiss the new complaint was due on or before May 14, 2021. That motion was fully briefed as of July 19, 2021. On September 30, 2022, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the second amended complaint on November 14, 2022. The court held an initial case management conference on December 2, 2022. The case is currently in discovery and the deadline for completion of fact discovery is July 10, 2023.
In the Nurlybayev action, on January 10, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the entire action in favor of the related actions pending in Tennessee, which motion was granted and the case was dismissed on February 26, 2020. On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff Nurlybayev filed a substantially similar action in New York state court. On August 21, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that action, which the Court granted on May 25, 2021. On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On March 2, 2022, we filed our opposition. Plaintiff filed their reply brief on March 11, 2022. On April 5, 2022, the Court heard argument on the appeal and on May 25, 2022 the Court of Appeals granted our motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, perfected his appeal on January 21, 2022, and the First Department affirmed dismissal of the action on May 5, 2022.
In the Sasso action, Plaintiff agreed to stay the action pending resolution of any motions to dismiss in any of the related actions. The Court so-ordered the parties' stipulation to that effect on January 22, 2020. On November 4, 2022, and again on February 2, 2023, the parties agreed to extend the stay and will provide an update to the Court on May 3, 2023.
On January 3, 2023, Align Technology, Inc. filed a complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and founders in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California purporting to set forth claims for alleged false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(A); Racketeer & Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); California Business & Prof. Code, §§ 17200, 17500, et seq.; and Arizona Anti-Racketeering Statute, A.R.S. § 13-2314. The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend its position in this litigation.
While we believe these claims to be without merit, there can be no assurance that additional claims alleging the same or similar facts will not be filed. Any litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's attention and resources.