InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 10
Posts 258
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/23/2014

Re: dswitz post# 101

Tuesday, 03/31/2015 5:13:58 PM

Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:13:58 PM

Post# of 166
Hello, not pumping, just the chart momentum and

On March 30, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") dismissed in its entirety an action brought by Jan Mouzon and twelve other plaintiffs in ten states against Radiancy, Inc. ("Radiancy"), a subsidiary of PhotoMedex, Inc. (the "Company"), and Radiancy's Chief Executive Officer, Dolev Rafaeli. Dr. Rafaeli is also a director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

This action arose from the advertising and sale of Radiancy's flagship product, the no!no! Hair removal device (the "Product"). The plaintiffs made various claims against Radiancy and Dr. Rafaeli, both on their own behalf and as representatives of a purported nationwide class (or as representatives of subclasses located in their own states). Among other claims, plaintiffs alleged that Radiancy and Dr. Rafaeli engaged in a scheme to deceive customers and the public under New York General Business Law §§ 349-350; alleged violations of state consumer protection laws; and brought warranty-based claims regarding the product, including breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and a claim for violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

The Court granted Radiancy's motion to dismiss the claims against it for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business Law §§ 349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim. The other counts against Radiancy were dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him by the Court; the Court further denied the plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery with respect to Dr. Rafaeli.

Finally, the Court denied the plaintiffs request to amend the Complaint.