Monster Energy fights in state high court and Riverside Superior Court

RIVERSIDE -- The state Supreme Court has granted a petition to review an appeal by Monster Energy Co., seeking to renew its suit against an attorney it says breached a confidentiality agreement in a settlement of a suit blaming Monster's energy drinks for the death of a teenager.

Coincidentally, Monster's Chief Executive Officer Rodney Sacks and Vice President and chief litigation counsel Aaron Sonnhalter were in a Riverside County Superior Court this week for opening statements in a personal injury lawsuit filed by attorneys for another teenager, who says one of the drinks caused his cardiac arrest at 18.

Whether the two cases are substantially similar is the subject of debate between attorneys in the Riverside case.

According to lead counsel Khail Parris of Parris Law, only two such cases filed by young adults against the company have gone to trial and none have yet reached a verdict. Bledsoe v. Monster Beverage, RIC1412551 (Riverside Super. Ct. filed Dec. 23, 2014).

In his opening statements, Texas-based attorney Greg Marks of Guajardo & Marks LLP who is also representing the plaintiff, Cody Bledsoe, argued his client suffered a cardiac arrhythmia caused by consuming a Monster energy drink he described as a "cocktail of caffeine" containing heart rate-increasing ingredients.

Monster's attorney, Marc P. Miles of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, argued the cardiac event was caused by Bledsoe being resuscitated after choking on food and suffocation.

"We know Cody choked while alone at home. ... We know Monster is safe and has nothing to do with this," Miles told the jury Monday.

"There was no objective evidence that would suggest choking," Marks said in anticipation of Miles' opening statement.

As the trial unfolds, so will the unrelated breach of contract suit now before the state Supreme Court. In the suit, attorney Bruce Schechter, also of Parris Law, is accused of breaching an agreement he signed settling a 2015 wrongful death suit involving a 14-year-old girl who allegedly suffered a cardiac event as a result of consuming a Monster energy drink.

As that trial came to a conclusion, Schechter negotiated the settlement agreement for his clients, which included a confidentiality provision that Monster says bound him and his firm. After signing the agreement, Schechter gave an interview that was quoted in an online article in which he mentioned a case he had handled against Monster, involving a 14-year-old girl, and that it had settled for "substantial dollars for the family."

Monster subsequently sued Schechter for breach of contract and other causes. In response, Schechter filed a special SLAPP motion to strike, arguing he was not a party in the settlement agreement and was not bound by the confidentiality stipulations.

The trial court denied Schechter's motion, but the decision was later reversed by the 4th District Court of Appeal in August.

The appellate court found that because Schechter was not explicitly named as one of the parties involved in the agreement, he signed solely in the capacity of an attorney who reviewed the settlement and given his client approval to sign it. Monster Energy Co., v. Bruce L. Schechter et al., E066267 (Cal. App. 4th Dist, filed Aug. 13, 2018).

Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez of the appellate court's Riverside branch added in the final pages of his opinion, "It seems easy enough, however, to draft a settlement agreement that explicitly makes the attorneys parties (even if only to the confidentiality provision) and explicitly requires them to sign as such."

Monster appealed that decision, sending the matter to the state Supreme Court, which agreed to review the matter to determine whether: "When a settlement agreement contains confidentiality provisions that are explicitly binding on the parties and their attorneys and the attorneys sign the agreement under the legend, 'Approved as to form and content,' have the attorneys consented to be bound by the confidentiality provisions?"

Both the current trial in Riverside and the one before the state Supreme Court originate from suits involving teens whose attorneys say they suffered from cardiac arrests after drinking a Monster beverage. But any seeming similarity was challenged in the Riverside County trial before Superior Court Judge Sunshine Sykes.

After the plaintiff's main expert witness in the Bledsoe trial, Dr. Steven Lipshultz, professor of pediatrics at Wayne State University in Michigan, made it clear he planned to reference previous suits in his testimony, the question of whether they were substantially similar quickly became the focus of a heated debate between Marks and Miles outside the presence of the jury.

Marks indicated Lipshultz was likely going to refer to three previous lawsuits involving Monster energy drinks and all, he said, were substantially similar. "All three have cardiac events," said Marks.

Miles said he was involved in the previous suits and all three either included individuals who had previous conditions or a dispute as to whether a Monster energy drink was involved.

"There is nothing before this court to show substantial similarity," Miles responded.

Sykes said she would conduct an additional hearing to determine if the cases were substantially similar and if Lipshultz would be allowed to rely on them in his testimony.