. BERGEN CouNTy. couRThousE SUPERIOR COURT LAW DIV BERGEN COUNTY JUSTICE CTR RM 415 HACKENSACK ‘NJ _07601-7680 ‘TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICE COURT TELEPHONE No. (201) 527-2600 COURT HOURS DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 Re. ARDITI JOHN VS. MANKIND CORPORATION DOCKET: BER L -008783 10 HE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 3. DISCOVERY IS 450 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYS FROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES PIRST. THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON CHARLES E. POWERS {EP YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT TEAM 003 ar: (201) 527-2600 If YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE A CERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FILING OF YOUR PLEADING PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.4:5A-2, ATTENTION: ATT: MARK D. LURTE MCKENNA MCTINAIN LLP 36 PARK STREET MONTCLAIR, NJ 07042-2929 \JUBBROILURIE LAW FIRM LLC 96 Park Street Montelair, NJ 07042 (973) 509-0050 Fax: (973) 509-0054 Attomeys for Plaintiff, John Arditi PERBOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY s ‘DIVISION: BERGEN COUN DOCKET NO. a) > | JOHN ARDITI, Plaintiff COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND vs. MANNKIND CORPORATION, PETER % RICHARDSON and PATRICIA MAYER, nS) wp Defendants hah ‘O \ & Plaintiff, John Arditi, by way of Complaint against the Defendants, alleges as follows: ? FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 1. Plaintiff John Arditi (“Arditi”) currently resides in Spring City, Pennsylvania. 2. Upon information and belief, defendant MannKind Corporation (“MannKind” or “MKC’), is a Delaware corporation, with a place of business at 61 South Paramus Road, Paramus, New Jersey. MKC’s Paramus location is the headquarters and nerve center for all of its clinical research and development operations, including clinical assessment and quality systems management, biometrics and data management, clinical outsourcing, pulmonary function testing, regulatory affairs, compliance, program management, and outsourcing departments.3. ‘Upon information and belief, defendant Peter Richardson was, at all relevant times, a resident of the State of New Jersey, and was MKC’s Chief Scientific Officer, with a principal place of business at 61 South Paramus Road, Paramus, New Jersey. 4. ‘Upon information and belief, defendant Patricia Mayer was, at all relevant times, a resident of the State of New Jersey, and was MKC’s Vice President, Worldwide Regulatory Affairs. 5. Arditi is a seasoned pharmaceutical professional, with over 25 years experience in pharmaceutical clinical trial auditing and Good Clinical Practices (“GCP”). He is a recognized expert in this field, having written and lectured extensively on this subject, and has been an ‘adjunct university professor. Mr. Arditi has also been recognized for his loyalty and professionalism, including awards for teamwork. 6. _Arditi commenced his employment with MKC in October 2006, as Head of GCP Compliance with the job title of Senior Director - World Wide Regulatory Affairs., reporting to MKC’s Paramus, New Jersey clinical research and development headquarters. 7. During the course of his employment, MKC distributed its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (“Code of Conduct”) to Arditi. 8. MKC distributed the Code of Conduct with the expectation and intent that its employees, including Arditi, rely on the statements, guidance, directions and representations contained in the Code of Conduct. 9. MKC’s Code of Conduct provides, in relevant part: Disregard of the law will not be tolerated. Violation of domestic or foreign laws, rules and regulations may subject an individual, as well as MannKind, to civil and/or criminal penalties. You should be aware that conduct and records, including emails, are subject to internal and extemal audits, and to discovery by third parties in the event of a government investigation or civil litigation. It is ineveryone's best interests to know and comply with our legal and ethical obligations. 10. MKC’s Code of Conduct further provides, in relevant part, If you encounter a situation or are considering a course of action and its appropriateness is unclear, discuss the matter promptly with your supervisor or the Compliance Officer; even the appearance of impropriety can be very damaging and should be avoided. Ifyou are aware of a suspected or actual violation of Code standards by others, ‘you have a responsibility to report it. You ate expected to promptly provide a ‘compliance resource with a specific description of the violation that you believe has occurred, including any information you have about the persons involved and the time of the violation. Whether you choose to speak with your supervisor, the Compliance Officer or National Hotline Services, you shouid do so without fear of any form of retaliation. We will take prompt disciplinary action against any ‘employee who retaliates against you, up to and including termination of employment, (emphasis added). 11. The Code of Conduct further provides, in relevant part: It is our policy to comply with all applicable laws that protect our employees, including the employees of our subsidiaries, against unlawful retaliation as a result of their lawful, good faith reporting of information regarding, or their participation in, investigations involving corporate fraud or other violations of federal and state law or the Code by the Company or any of its agents. 12. For the first three years, MKC recognized that Arditi’s performance was exemplary, as evidenced by positive performance appraisals, and the respect of his staff and colleagues for his undisputed knowledge, integrity, professionalism, loyalty and diligence. 13, Indeed, just months before Arditi’s termination, Richardson publicly acknowledged, Arditi’s efforts and leadership: Please find the latest update on our clinical site inspections which are now complete. The most recent inspection of the Russian site for the 138 has finished, once again, without a 483. In my opinion this is an outstanding achievement of which Mannkind should feel very proud. We now await the completion of the ‘two remaining vendors: Medgraphics, which is presently proceeding smoothly and next week our central laboratory (BARC) will be inspected as a GLP audit inEurope. John Arditi has seen the benefits of his diligent preparatory work in setting our quality standards over the past years. (emphasis added). 14, Unfortunately, MKC ultimately decided to fire Arditi precisely for his diligence and insistence on quality standards, when it conflicted with MKC’s desire to withhold information from the FDA for its short term financial self-interest, without consideration of the legality of its actions or the resulting impact on public health, safety and finances. 15, More specifically, Arditi believed that MKC was committed to transparency and compliance with all laws and regulations, and cared about the impact of its clinical trials and products on the public health and safety. To that end, and relying on bis vast years of experience and the representations contained in the Code of Conduct, Arditi understood that, if there were concems over potentially fraudulent or suspicious clinical trial data, the FDA should be notified about such issues before it approves a product as safe and effective, and before it allows such product to be prescribed and sold to human patients. 16, Inaccordance with his reasonable understanding of MKC’s legal and ethical obligations, and in accordance with MKC’s Code of Conduct, on or about November 9, 2009, ‘Arditi notified Mayer that he and one of his colleagues, Ms. Margaret Galluzzi, VP of Clinical Operations, had confirmed audit concerns regarding potential fraud and scientific misconduct in connection with one of MKC’s clinical sites. 17, By way of background, during Arditi’s employment, MKC was focused primarily ‘on the discovery, development and potential commercialization of Afrezza ™ (insulin human) Inhalation Powder, for the treatment of adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes for the control of hyperglycemia.18. As part of its Aftezza clinical development program, MKC contracted with ‘numerous sites, primarily in foreign and third world countries, (o enroll human patients to test the safety and efficacy of Afrezza, with the ultimate goal of submitting a New Drug Application CNDA") to the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the approval to sell and market this product to human patients in the United States, and to be eligible for reimbursement by federal and state Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as by private insurers. 19. MKC filed an NDA with the FDA for Afrezza in or about March 2009, including clinical trial data from its clinical sites. 20. _Arditi was responsible for overseeing and reviewing, from a quality assurance perspective, these clinical sites, to ensure that the sites complied with all applicable protocols, and maintained complete and accurate records. 21. During the course of his review, Arditi noticed various issues with certain foreign sites, and as a consequence, of potential issues regarding data that MKC has submitted to the FDA in connection with its NDA for Afrezza. 22. For example, Arditi observed that all patients in Dr. Yuri G. Shvartz’s ‘(Shvartz”) site in Russia had consistent blood pressure readings over several months, even though it would be expected that blood pressure should vary from time to time, indicating potential protocol violations and/or fraudulent study results, including the possibility of fictitious patients and/or that the site did not properly document potential safety issues in connection with Afrezza. 23. _Arditi likewise noted potential fraud or scientific misconduct in connection with trials conducted in Bulgaria and other sites.24. — Onor about November 9, 2009, Arditi notified his supervisor, Mayer, that he and one of his colleagues, Ms. Margaret Galluzzi (“Galluzzi"), VP of Clinical Operations, had confirmed his audit concerns regarding Dr. Schvarts’ site. 25. _Arditi further suggested to Mayer that, “To be consistent with the previous determinations MKC must proceed with prompt notifications required under regulation.” 26. _Arditi also recommended that Dr. Schvartz provide further explanation as to material inaccuracies in blood pressure and numerous other data recording. 27. _Arditi concluded that “immediate disclosure {to the FDA] is essential to fulfill obligations and maintain sponsor integrity during inspectio 28. Unconvinced about the need for transparency to the FDA, Mayer asked Arditi to provide a further synopsis. In response, Arditi wrote, in part: Upon review of previous audit issues, our GCP compliance head noted trended inaccuracies in reported blood pressure values across all patients by Dr. Shvartz’s site. A 2005 documented explanation provided by Dr. Shvartz included his practice of resting patients in sitting before making measurements that accounted for such consistency. While MKC staff in 2005 appear to have accepted this explanation, in our recent preparations for FDA inspection with Dr. Shvartz it was explained to MKC stalf that site personnel estimated such BP values and rounded to the nearest 0 of 5 estimated from a properly graduated sphygmomanometer. Dr. Shvartz has offered documentation of his current perspective in explaining these blood pressure measurements, MKC currently awaits this updated documentation to add to current archive and share with FDA. Given these recent developments, MKC would like to bring this matter to the attention of FDA in the spirit of full disclosure and cooperation in helping to make determinations on this GCP related matter. 29, Still unconvinced about the need for transparency, Mayer convened a meeting on November 13, 2009, with Arditi, Galluzzi and Richardson. During this meeting, it became clear that commercial interests trumped integrity and transparency, as well as MKC’s legal and ethical obligations to provide candid, complete and accurate information to the FDA before it approvesadrug for human use and governmental reimbursement. As noted in the minutes of the November 13 meeting: . Mayer redirected with the challenge of how to present such concerns to the FDA at this point. She noted J. Arditi’s insistence on early and complete disclosure beginning on 30 Sep wien the previously unknown audit report was discovered and the benefits of partnering with the FDA on recently revealed issues. It was acknowledged that the impact of such disclosures were problematic, however, J. Arditi emphasized early and conservative regulatory adherence to maintain MKC high quality standing in dealing with such matters with the agency, J. Arditi deferred to his management in deciding the Regulatory ‘Atfairs relationship they want to have. Reiterating and that his recommendations were in order to fulfill consistency with his roles as independent GCP compliance/QA. 30. Arditi also raised concern about Dr. Daskalova’s clinical site in Bulgaria. For example, an audit of that site revealed that “There were numerous critical and significant findings... It appeared there was inadequate oversight of the [Principal Investigator] specifically with regard protocol adherence, Investigational Product (IP), source documentation, safety reporting, study delegation, submission of required documentation to the Ethics Committees, and study organization, possibly impacting data integrity at the site.” 31. For example, the audit revealed that Dr. Daskalova did not have adequate oversight over Afrezza with regard to treatment arm assignment, drug accountability, verification of subject compliance and accurate dispensing. In fact, it could not even be confirmed that the clinical trial subject were on the correct assigned treatment arm, and there appeared to be fraudulent documentation, including records from the site that patients had received clinical trial kits from the site, when the packing slips indicated that those kits were not even delivered to the site until weeks or even months later. Dr. Daskalova could not explain these discrepencies. 32. ‘The Daskalova audit further revealed that it could not even be confirmed that the patients who were enrolled in the site had met the necessary requirements for inclusion in thestudy. Dr. Dasklova could not find any documentation to confirm that these patients were properly enrolled in the study. 33. The Dasklova audit further found that patients had not been provided with updated safety information, as required by the clinical study protocol. Further, according to the audit, it was impossible to determine whether safety tests had been performed on patients and that the integrity of the data could not be confirmed. The audit also found that “Accurate safety reporting over the study period of three years could not be confirmed.” 34. A follow up audit of Daskalova’s site also revealed potential fraud in connection with patient enrollment. More specifically, although all initial meetings with patients were supposed to be one on one to review relevant safety information, and to obiain their signed informed consent forms (“ICFs”), several ICFs had the same date and time, indicating potential fictitious and fraudulent patient enrollment. Dr. Daskalova could not explain this discrepancy. 35. The audit also could not confirm that Investigational Product had actually arrived at the site before being dispensed per the Drug Accountability Log. 36. The follow up audit further found that adverse events were not always captured or accurately reported. 37. _ Asaresult of these, and other, audit findings, Arditi reasonably believed that these audits, as well as other reports, revealed concern that fraudulent clinical study data was submitted to the company, and that the company had accordingly submitted potentially fraudulent and misleading date to the FDA in connection with its NDA seeking approval of ‘Afrezza. Recognizing the potential violations of law, rules, regulations and public policy, Arditi advocated that the company should further investigate this situation and disclose these facts to the FDA in connection with its review of the Afrezza NDA, so that the FDA could make a fulland informed decision regarding the safety and efficacy of Afrezza before it approved the drug to be sold and marketed to human patients in the United States, and be eligible for reimbursement by federal, state and private insurers. 38. Ultimately, MKC decided not to disclose any potential problems to the FDA out of concem that, if the FDA was notified of these concems, it might delay approval of MKC’s ‘New Drug Application for Afrezza. 39, Incontravention of both New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) and MKC’s non-retaliation policy, Arditi suffered increasingly blatant retaliation as a result of his insistence that MKC maintain the highest standards of business ethics. 40. For example, Mayer refused to deal with Arditi, kept information from him critical to his ability to perform his job, and dragged her feet on responding to his various requests. 41. Indeed, MKC’s attempts at undermining Arditi’s quality initiatives is evident from its failure to approve budgets or respond to his proposed audit plans, making sure that he did not uncover any issues that might need to be reported to the FDA. 42. Mayer’s non-communication resulted in unneeded frustration, and necessitated ‘Arditi to adopt a more direct approach with her, for which he suffered further retaliation. In ‘essence, Atditi was faced with a no-win situation: (1) receive no response from Mayer, resulting in Arditi’s inability to perform his job, and receive an unsatisfactory rating on his job goals, and possibly put the company in jeopardy; or (2) press Mayer and try to get her attention, and receive an unsatisfactory rating on his communication style. 43. Significantly, Mayer unreasonably delayed providing a performance evaluation to ‘Arditi, When she finally did so, shortly after Arditi raised his concerns about various foreignclinical trial sites and potential fraud and scientific misconduct, the retaliation for raising his. concerns was blatant and, for the first time, Arditi’s performance was somehow deemed unsatisfactory. 44. Arditi’s stance with regard to transparency, and management's refusal to comply with its legal and ethical obligations, were clearly the motivating forces behind this evaluation. For example, Mr, Arditi was rated “Improvement Required” for Teamwork, based on his disagreement with the team to withhold information from the FDA. 45. Similarly, Arditi was rated negatively with regard to “Communication” and “Trust and Respect” because management did not want to hear his insistence on complying with Jaws, regulations and GCPs. 46. Perhaps most telling, Mayer wrote: 1 am concemed about John’s judgment, particularly when he is charged with documenting company internal discussions. This specific behavior raises ‘questions about John’s capability to host health authority inspection in MannKind’s best interests. In addition, it is not of John’s strengths to find consensus during internal discussions and to document and support the consensus reached during discussion. 47. Inessence, Mayer suggested that Arditi whitewash discussions and documentations, to show consensus when none existed, and to create a false favorable paper trail in the event of investigation or litigation. Indeed, as noted in MKC’s Code of Conduct, “You should be aware that conduct and records, including emails, are subject to internal and external audits, and to discovery by third parties in the event of a government investigation or civil litigation.” Put simply, Mayer reprimanded Arditi for his refusal to create a false and fraudulent paper tral in the event that the government conducted an audit of MKC’s clinical trial results 48. Further, Mayer’s concern over Arditi’s interactions with health authorities shows ‘clear intention to commit fraud on the FDA, so that the FDA would approve Afrezza, unaware 10of potential issues regarding that product’s safety and efficacy. As Mayer herself notes, she was concerned that Arditi might speak transparently to governmental agencies when he believes that such actions are legally and ethically appropriate and in the public interest, but may not be in MKC’ perceived short term commercial interests. 49. Mayer’s evaluation not only violated CEPA, it also violated MKC’s Code of Conduct. According to the Code of Conduct, “The compliance environment within each supervisor's assigned area of responsibility will be a significant factor in evaluating the quality of that individual's performance. In addition, any employee who makes an exemplary effort to implement and uphold our legal and ethical standards will be recognized for that effort in his or her performance review.” Clearly, MKC’s decision not to comply with its own Code of Conduct highlights its retaliatory animus and hypocrisy. 50. Defendants further overruled and blocked Arditi’s attempt to conduct additional and follow up audits to determine whether there had been further fraud and misconduct in the clinical data submitted to the FDA in its Afrezza NDA. Despite Arditi’s repeated petition and proposals and need to follow up on compliance concems, defendants blocked his budget and requisitions, and delayed approving Arditi’s budge for more than six months in order to obstruct any discovery of fraud and scientific misconduct. 51. Defendants also blocked the conduct of routine and “for cause” audits in order to avoid dealing with reporting of known compliance and fraudulent concerns. These audits are required to be conducted under both company policy and by FDA standards. 52, Defendants also denied Arditi aocess to any budget reports in order to allow ‘manipulation of facts surrounding his spending and significant savings contributions to the budget for 2009 and continuing. 153. Ina further misguided attempt to muzzle, and ultimately terminate, Arditi, Mayer micro-managed Arditi, looking to set him up for failure and to fabricate reasons to terminate his ‘employment. 54. More specifically, through his leadership, Arditi saved over $400,000, which he sought to use for necessary and appropriate audits. 55. Although nothing had been finalized regarding the use of such funds, and even. though Arditi signed no contract or purchase order committing these funds, he was abruptly terminated on May 11, 2010, based on the spurious ground that he exceeded his authority in authorizing and/or signing imaginary purchase orders. 56. Upon information and belief, the termination decision was made by Mayer and Richardson. 57. Mayer, Richardson and MKC terminated Arditi’s employment due to his objection and refusal to withhold information from the FDA conceming potential safety concerns surrounding Afrezza and its clinical study data, resulting in potential fraud on the FDA and the public, and in violation of law and public policy. FIRST COU! 58, PlaintifT incorporates by reference the allegations and facts contained in the preceding paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 59, _Arditi, who has substantial business education and many decades’ experience in the pharmaceutical industry, had a genuine, sincere and objectionably reasonable belief that MKC’s strategies, decisions and actions violated ethical and legal standards, were fraudulent, breached clear mandates of public policy, and implicate public health and safety. 260. Arditi repeatedly voiced his objections to Defendants about said strategies, decisions and actions. 61. Inretaliation for Arditi’s opposition, resistance and/or refusal to endorse, promote and participate in said strategies, decisions and actions, Defendants retaliated against Arditi in determining his compensation, demeaning his ethics, stifling his dissent and, ultimately, terminating his employment. 62, Defendants’ actions constitute retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq. 63. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ illegal retaliation, Arditi has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages, including but not limited to physical and emotional damages, economic harm, stress, damage to his reputation as well as disruption in his professional and personal life. 64. Defendants’ actions have been extreme and outrageous, and were actuated by actual malice and/or wanton and willful disregard for Arditi and for laws, regulations, public policy and public health and safety. WHEREFORE, Arditi demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages, including back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees, pre~ judgment and post-judgment interest, Court costs and fees, and such other relief as the Court ‘may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances. SECOND COUNT 65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations and facts contained in the preceding paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 1366. _Arditi, who has substantial business education and many decades’ experience in the pharmaceutical industry, had a genuine, sincere and objectionably reasonable belief that MKC’s strategies, decisions and actions violated ethical and legal standards, were fraudulent, breached clear mandates of public policy, and may implicate public health and safety. 67. Arditi repeatedly voiced his objections to Defendants about said strategies, decisions and actions. 68. _ In retaliation for Arditi's opposition, resistance and/or refusal to endorse, promote and participate in said strategies, decisions and actions, Defendants retaliated against Arditi determining his compensation, demeaning his ethics, stifling his dissent and, ultimately, terminating his employment. 69. Defendants” actions constitute wrongful retaliation and termination of Arditi’s employment in violation of New Jersey Court precedents recognizing employee protection with respect to a refusal to take part in and/or promote an employer's practice that violates a clear ‘mandate of publie policy. 70. Asacdirect and proximate result of Defendants’ illegal retaliation, Arditi has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages, including but not limited to physical and emotional damages, economic harm, stress, damage to his reputation as well as disruption in his professional and personal life. 71. Defendants’ actions have been extreme and outrageous, and were actuated by actual malice and/or wanton and willful disregard for Arditi and for laws, regulations, public policy and public health and safety. WHEREFORE, Arditi demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages, including back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees, pre- 14judgment and post-judgment interest, Court costs and fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances. THIRD COUNT 72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations and facts contained in the preceding paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 73. MKC has adopted a Code of Conduct for all officers, directors and employees. 74, The Code of Conduct provides, in relevant part, that the company strictly prohibits any retaliation for reporting potential violations and other issues in good faith under this policy. 75. ‘The Code of Conduct further provides, in relevant part, that any retaliation for raising concerns in good faith will not be permitted, and will result in appropriate discipline, up to and including termination of employment. 76. — MKC distributed the Code of Conduct with the intention and expectation that employees would rely on the statements, guidance and direction contained within the Code of Conduct, 77. Arditi reasonably relied on, and complied with, the Code of Conduet by promptly reporting any concerns that he might have. 78. Arditi reasonably relied on the Code of Conduct in believing that he could raise concems to senior management without fear that he could be terminated in response. 79. Defendants have breached the Code of Conduct, and their obligations to Arditi, by terminating his employment due to the fact that he raised concerns in good faith. 15,80. Defendants have breached the Code of Conduct, and their obligations to Arditi, by failing to handle his reports sensitively, promptly and in a manner consistent with Company policy. 81. Asaresult of Defendants” breaches of the Code of Conduct, Arditi has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages, including but not limited to physical and emotional damages, economic harm, stress, damage to his reputation as well as disruption in his professional and personal life. 82. Defendants’ actions have been extreme and outrageous, and were actuated by actual malice and/or wanton and willful disregard for Arditi. WHEREFORE, Arditi demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages, including back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees, pre judgment and post-judgment interest, Court costs and fees, and such other relief as the Court ‘may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances FOURTH COUNT 83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations and facts contained in the preceding paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 84. There is an implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit in every contractual obligation, including Defendants’ obligations pursuant to the Code of Conduct. 85. Defendants have breached their obligation of good faith and fair dealing to Arditi by retaliating against him for reporting potential violations of law and company policy in good faith. 1686. Defendants have breached their obligation of good faith and fair dealing to Arditi, by failing to handle his reports sensitively, promptly and in a manner consistent with Company policy. 87. Asaresult of Defendants’ breaches of the Code of Conduct, Arditi has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages, including but not fimited to physical and emotional damages, economic harm, stress, damage to his reputation as well as disruption in his professional and personal life. WHEREFORE, Arditi demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages, including back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees, pre~ judgment and post-judgment interest, Court costs and such other relief as the Court may deem. |just and appropriate under the circumstances. EXETH COUNT 88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations and facts contained in the preceding paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 89. Defendants acted willfully, deliberately and intentionally to inflicted upon Arditi severe emotional distress up to and including the date of Arditi’s wrongful termination. 90. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress, Arditi has in the past suffered and will in the future continue to suffer, from severe emotional distress and anxiety. WHEREFORE, Arditi demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally. for damages, including back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees, pre- judgment and postjudgment interest, Court costs and such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances. 7JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues herein. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to R.4:25-4, Plaintiff hereby designate Mark D. Lurie, Esq. as trial counsel in the within matter. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:5-1 ‘The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge and information, this, dispute is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or a pending arbitration proceeding and is not aware of any additional parties who should be joined in this action at this time. LURIE LAW FIRM LLC Attomeys for Plaintiff 18CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (cis) Use for initial Law Division Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c), if information above the black bar is not completed or attorney's signature is not affixed "ATTORNEY /PRO SE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER ‘COUNTY OF VENUE Mark D. Lurie (973) 509-0050 Bergen eas aT ‘acne TST a maar 96 Park Street ‘Complaint Montclair, NJ_07042 JURYDEMAND =f Yes 1] No. NAME OF PARTY (e4., John Doe, Paint) John Arditi ‘CAPTION John Arditiv. Mankind Corporation, Peter Richardson and Patricia Mayer ‘CASE TYPE NUMBER (See reverse side for isting) 616 RELATED GASES PENDING? O ves No TS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE? ves MNO IE YOU HAVE CHECKED “YES,” SEE NJ.S.A.24'53 A 27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING YOUR OBLIGATION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT, IF YES, LIST DOCKET NUMBERS ‘DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING ANY PARTIES (arising out of same transaction or occurance)? O yes THE INFC ‘DOPARTIES HAVE A CURRENT, PASTOR eran (CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION TF YES, 1S THAT RELATIONSHIP (NAME OF DEFENDANT'S PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY (known) FO M CANNOT RECURRENT RELATIONSHIP? I BeLOVERENPLOTEE 1 Frevomccioor 1] Onn (expiain) mves Ono Fama Gl busness [DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS CASE PROVIDE FORPAYMENT OF FEES BY THELOSINGPARTY? lM ves LINO ACCELERATED DISPOSITION ‘USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPEGIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR TBO YOU GR YOUR CLIENT REED AR BABII ASCONMOORTIONS? TF VES, PLEASE IDENTIFY HE REQUESTED ATCOMMODATION O yes Bo "WUL AN INTERPRETER GE NEEDED? TF VES, FOR WHAT NGINGE? O ves BN Teer that confidential porsonalidentifor have been redactod (Yom documents now aubvitied to the Cour and willbe redacted rom al documents uied inte ie in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b). ATTORNEY SIGNATURE: fads SY) 7 Tiocive 07/01/2010, CN T0517 English Una age 1 of2« , CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (cis) Use for initial pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 CASE TYPES (Choose one and enter number of case type in appropriate space on the reverse side.) ‘Track! - 150 days’ 151 NAME CHANGE 175 FORFEITURE 302 TENANCY 309. REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complex Commercial or Construction) ‘502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters ont) 510 UM or UIM CLAIM (coverage issues only) 511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT 512 LEMONLAW. 801 SUMMARY ACTION ‘802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (summary action) 969 OTHER (briefly Sescrbe nature of acon) Track l - 300 days" discovery ‘CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD) ‘CONTRACTICOMMERCIAL TRANSACTION ‘AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ‘AUTO NEGLIGENCE — PROPERTY DAMAGE, 621 UM or UIM CLAIM (includes bodily injury) TORT-OTHER Track i; 450 days: discovery ‘CIVIL RIGHTS Sor CONDEMNATION ‘ASSAULT AND BATTERY MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PRODUCT LABILITY PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE ‘Toxic TORT DEFAMATION 616 WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES 617. INVERSE CONDEMNATION 618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judge / 450 days’ discovery 4156 ENVIRONMENTALIENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION 303 MT. LAUREL ‘508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ‘513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION ‘514 INSURANCE FRAUD (620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT 701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS. Centrally Managed Litigation (Track IV) ‘280 Zenon 1285 Styker Trident Hip implants 288 Prudential Tort Ligation 88888 g egageaee Mass Tort (Track t¥) ‘248 CIBA GEIGY 281 BRISTOLMYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL 206 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT) 282 FOSAMAX 271 ACCUTANE 283 DIGITEK 272 BEXTRAICELEBREX 284 NUVARING 274 RISPERDAL/SEROQUELZYPREXA 288 LEVAQUIN 275 ORTHO EVRA 287 YAZIYASMINIOCELLA 277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE 601 ASBESTOS 278 ZOMETNAREDIA 819 VIOXX 273 GADOLINIUM 1 you bolieve this casa roquires a track other than that provid above, please indicate the resson on Side 4, in the space under “Case Charactoritics. Please check of each applicable category 0 Verbal Threshold CO Putative Class Action Cl Title 9 ‘Efecive 0770172010, ON 10517-English page 2 of2LURIE LAW FIRM LLC "A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY "ATTORNEY ATLAW 96 PARK STREET MONTCLAIR, NJ 07042 (a7) 59.0050 EACSAME (79) 508.005 WWW LURIELAWFIRMCOM Maze asc} OY) September 13, 2010 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Clerk, Civil Division Bergen County Justice Center 10 Main Street Hackensack. NJ 07601 Re: _ Arditi v. MannKind Corporation et al. mpl Dear Sir/Madam: ‘This office represents the plaintiff, John Arditi, in the above captioned action. Enclosed for filing are an original and two copies of: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint and Jury Demand; and 2. Civil Case Information Statement; and Thave also enclosed a check for the filing fees. Kindly stamp cach document as “fied” and retum a copy inthe enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Tob Mark DiLurie Enel. Ce: John Arditi -