Moore v. Itkins et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DUAN L. MOORE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-CV-01180 JMB
)
JASON ITKINS, et al. 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Self-represented Plaintiff Duan L. Moore brings this action against the attorneys who
previously represented him in a Risperdal lawsuit.1 [ECF No. 1]. The matter is now before the
Court upon the Motion of Plaintiff for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, or without prepayment
of the required filing fees and costs. [ECF No. 3]. Having reviewed the Motion and the financial
information submitted in support, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis, as it appears Plaintiff has failed to include income he has received from “other sources.”
Although the Court would normally require Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee in this matter after
the denial of his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff has filed a second case in this
Court repeating the same or similar allegations in this matter. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
this action, without prejudice due to his failure to provide truthful information on his Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s action is subject to dismissal as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
1Plaintiff filed a second, and similar, lawsuit against the same defendants on January 27, 2026. See Moore
v. Kline, et al., No. 4:26-CV-00107 HEA (E.D.Mo.). Plaintiff paid the $405 filing fee in that action, and
he is responsible for service of process.
Case: 4:25-cv-01180-JMB Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
The Complaint
Plaintiff Duan Moore filed the instant action on August 5, 2025, against attorneys Jason
Itkins, Paul Crouch and Stephen Sheller. He claims that he engaged the law firm of Arnold &
Itkins, made up of Jason Itkins and Kurt Arnold, on or about October 7, 2015, to represent him in
a lawsuit concerning the medication Risperdal. Plaintiff asserts that because he took Risperdal as
a child, he developed a condition known as gynecomastia, or enlarged breast tissue. Through
Arnold & Itkins, Plaintiff joined mass tort litigation against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen
Research and Development, LLC, and Johnson & Johnson, Co. He asserts that Arnold & Itkins
shared responsibility in the case with other lawyers, including Thomas Kline and Christopher
Gomez of the law firm of Kline & Specter, PC, as well as Stephen Sheller, of Sheller PC and Paul
Crouch of The Crouch Firm, PLLC.
The gist of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that defendants chose to settle his lawsuit without his
permission in the Philadelphia Court system. See generally ECF No. 1. He claims that when he
called Stanley Thompson, the Director of the Risperdal Program, Thompson provided him with
“the correct case number, the lawyer’s name, the Judge name, the settlement, and the Philadelphia
Courts. . .” [ECF No. 1 at 5]. Plaintiff states that he was told by defendant Crouch that he had no
say in negotiating the amount he would be charged for attorneys’ fees, and Plaintiff appears to
object to the large assessment for fees in the settlement agreement. Plaintiff asserts that if he
“would have went to trial he would have got more [than] $500,000 plus pursuit of damages.” [ECF
No. 1 at 5].
Plaintiff has attached his engagement agreement with defendants and the separate
settlement agreements for the Risperdal lawsuit to the docket in this action, as well as in Moore v.
Kline, et al., No. 4:26-CV-00107 HEA (E.D.Mo.), and the Court takes judicial notice of these
agreements when deciding this action. Plaintiff’s engagement agreement, entered on October 7,
Case: 4:25-cv-01180-JMB Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
2015, specifically contemplates a 45% contingency fee agreement should his claims be settled as
“part of an aggregate settlement as a result of other cases that are filed.” [ECF No. 4 at 1]. The
engagement agreement also denotes how fees will be shared between associate counsel. See id.
And the agreement grants Plaintiff’s attorneys “power of attorney to execute all documents
connected with the claim for the prosecution of which the Attorneys are retained” including
settlement agreements. Id. at 2.
On July 22, 2024, Plaintiff was notified by Arnold & Itkins that there was a settlement
offer which arose from an aggregate settlement process for injuries suffered by Plaintiff and others
who were hurt by the drug Risperdal who had developed gynecomastia. [ECF No. 4 at 9]. Plaintiff
was informed that he had a choice as to whether to participate in the settlement offer, the amount
of which had been determined by Court-appointed Special Masters and approved by the 23 rd
District Court for Wharton County, Texas. Id. Plaintiff’s gross settlement offer was $98,409.94,
and he was required to electronically sign and notarize the documents provided to him within 14
days of receipt. Id.
In the paperwork provided, Plaintiff was informed how Johnson & Johnson decided to
settle an aggregate number of claims, with the notation that Plaintiff’s claim was designated in
Group Eight. See id. at 10. The letter stated:
That means that the settlement was negotiated on behalf of the entire group of 659
clients, and not on behalf of any one client individually. We chose to pursue an
aggregate settlement because Defendants perceive greater value in resolving a large
number of claims, rather than in resolving just one or a small number of cases. As
a result, we believe that this aggregate settlement allowed us to secure greater
compensation for all our clients, as well as more favorable settlement terms.
Id.
As an attachment to the letter, Plaintiff’s net amount of the settlement was set forth, noting
the percentage of the settlement that would be placed in a holdback fund, the percentage that would
he held for attorneys’ fees, the percentage that would be held for costs and expenses, and the fact
Case: 4:25-cv-01180-JMB Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 4 -
that some amount could be held back for medical liens. See id. 11-16. Plaintiff accepted the
settlement offer on the same day it was provided to him – July 22, 2024. Id. at 19.
On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff received a Risperdal Settlement Disbursement Closing
Statement from Archer Systems, a Settlement Administrator working on behalf of Arnold & Itkins.
[ECF No. 8]. From Plaintiff’s settlement proceeds of $98,409.94, he received $32,475.23 in a lump
sum payment. This sum was his net proceeds after $54,125.46 was taken out in attorneys’ fees and
$19,150.23 was taken out in expenses. Additionally, there was a $2,500 medical lien taken out of
the funds. See id.
Plaintiff was then notified in December of 2025 that holdback funds from the Global
Settlement Agreement were also available to be distributed. His Gross Pro Rata Share of those
funds was $36,661.61, less attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. See Moore v. Kline, et al., No.
4:26-CV-00107 HEA (E.D.Mo.), Ex 1-1 at 84-89. On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff approved the
release of the remainder of those funds which amounted to $15,163.89. See id.
It appears Plaintiff also received a check from Arnold & Itkins for a pro rata share of the
General Expenses Holdback Fund of the Risperdal Disbursement Closing Costs. However, it is
unclear when this was released to Plaintiff. The amount appears to have been sent in the form of a
check for $805.64 from Arnold & Itkins. See Moore v. Kline, et al., No. 4:26-CV-00107 HEA
(E.D.Mo.), Ex 1-1 at 119.
Totaling the aforementioned disbursements, it appears that Plaintiff received $48,444.76
in total from his claims against Johnson & Johnson. As Plaintiff clearly contracted with defendants
to pay the attorneys’ fees that were taken out of the settlement funds, and he also signed the
settlement agreements attached to his pleadings, his only claim in this lawsuit appears to be that
he is dissatisfied with defendants because he wanted to receive more money for his claims than he
actually received. Unfortunately, this type of claim is not cognizable without a legal basis for the
Case: 4:25-cv-01180-JMB Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 5 -
claim and is subject to dismissal as written. Plaintiff entered a bargain, contracted for it and signed
the settlement agreements. He cannot now attempt to sue after the fact simply because he is seeking
more money for his Risperdal claim. His claim in this lawsuit is legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
As noted at the outset of the Court’s Opinion, the Court feels compelled to address
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis in this matter. [ECF No. 3]. Because Plaintiff has
failed to disclose all sources of his income on his financial affidavit, which was filed on August 5,
2025, the Court will deny his Motion.
Plaintiff has attached evidence that in October of 2024, he received a lump sum payment
of $32,475.23 from the Risperdal Settlement. He has also attached evidence that on or about
December 19, 2025, he received a lump sum payment of $15,163.89 from the Risperdal
Settlement. Plaintiff additionally filed Moore v. Kline, et al., No. 4:26-CV-00107 HEA (E.D.Mo.)
in this Court on January 27, 2026, and he paid the full $405 filing fee on that date.
Despite the aforementioned, Plaintiff filed his Plaintiff’s financial affidavit on August 5,
2025, he claims that his only source of income is gross wages of $1,343. He does not indicate
where he is employed, nor does he state whether he receives this sum is per week, bi-weekly or
monthly.2 Plaintiff also fails to identify if he has “other sources of income,” and he states that he
has only $15.00 in his checking. Additionally, when Plaintiff received additional sources of
income after the filing of his financial affidavit, he failed to update his affidavit with the Court.
2 The Court note that Plaintiff attached to his Complaint a notification from the Social Security
Administration dated November 6, 2024, indicating that Plaintiff would be receiving monthly benefits in
an amount of $1,1330. It is unclear if Plaintiff’s “employment” income is related to his Social Security
income.
Case: 4:25-cv-01180-JMB Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 6 -
Plaintiff does not appear to have been truthful when filling out his financial affidavit, and
for this reason, Plaintiff’s claim is subject to dismissal, without prejudice. Alternatively, Plaintiff’s
action is subject to dismissal as frivolous as set forth above. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Counsel will be denied as moot as will Mr. Ezra Williams’ Motion
to Intervene in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis [ECF No. 3] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice due to
Plaintiff’s failure to fill out his financial affidavit in a truthful manner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF
No. 2] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Ezra Williams’ Motion to Intervene [ECF No. 6]
is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 3 rd day of February, 2026.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01180-JMB Doc. #: 9 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>