All named defendants in this federal lawsuit have now been formally served with process. With service complete, the case has entered its adversarial phase, and each defendant is now on their own response clock under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This matters because deadlines are not collective. They are
Filed December 11, 2025 — U.S. District Court, District of Oregon Case No. 3:25-cv-2308-SB On December 11, 2025, I filed a new federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem Inc., Quten Research Institute LLC, AMJ Services LLC,
The Department of Labor Taxpayer First Act case Hollingsworth v. DRVM LLC et al, continues to develop in unusual ways, as Respondent DRVM LLC—represented by Fisher Phillips LLP, one of the largest employment-defense firms in the United States—has now filed its Initial Disclosures. What stands out is not
For months, this case has been unfolding across multiple forums. Arbitration. Federal court. Agency filings. Whistleblower submissions. Every step has revealed one thing: the deeper the structure goes, the harder the fight becomes, and the more intentional the obstruction appears. Today, the judge issued her ruling. And while some people
November 20th, 2025, I served my Initial Disclosures in the Department of Labor retaliation case. On paper it looks like a simple filing. In reality, it is one of the most important moves in the entire 15 billion dollar story. Jorden’s Initial Disclosures Filed November 20th, 2025Jorden’s Initial
On November 14, 2025, the United States Department of Labor officially opened my Taxpayer First Act whistleblower retaliation case. This is no longer an OSHA review or a misunderstanding. This is a federal judge inside the Office of Administrative Law Judges taking jurisdiction over a case that involves IRS filings,
On October 27, 2025, Sanofi-Aventis S.A. submitted its official Form 6-K to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a 58-page half-year report legally required to list every major event that could affect the company’s financial condition. It was supposed to be transparent. Instead, it’s proof of
Filing a Sur-Reply is rare. Normally, a motion, an opposition, and a reply complete the discussion. Courts only allow a Sur-Reply when the opposing side raises new arguments or introduces new evidence that could mislead the record if left unaddressed. That’s exactly what happened here, and that’s why
I filed this case to expose a nationwide payroll fraud hidden behind shell companies, dissolved LLCs, and celebrity‑linked trusts. It’s the kind of case that usually gets buried because it’s too big, too complex, and too uncomfortable. There are nine respondents in this case, from billion‑dollar
This week, DRVM and its high-priced lawyers at Fisher Phillips pulled a move that tells you everything about how billion-dollar corporations play the system. On the exact day a deadline hit, instead of letting each company respond as the Court ordered, they filed a motion asking the judge to “correct
There’s been a development regarding the retaliation case. I’ve decided to open a dedicated page on this website that will track everything about the retaliation case, from the original OSHA filing, to the dismissal, to the appeal that now moves this fight before a Department of Labor Administrative
I need to tell you what just happened, because this is the kind of move that usually happens in the dark. The other side, some of the most powerful law firms in the country, tried to reach out directly to the judge’s chambers without me copied. On the surface,