Solarium has been in a long-running legal battle with the family of a man who died after contracting a mysterious skin disease from tanning salons.

Solarium, which operates in Southern California, was awarded $1.5 million in damages by the California Superior Court in May.

In September, Solarium appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the company’s contract with the victim’s family was void and could not be enforced.

Solaria had previously argued that the family’s request for a jury trial violated the Family Medical Leave Act, which guarantees family members the same paid leave benefits as employees.

Solarioi, a former employee at Solarium who is suing Solarium and its parent company, Kaufen Schweiz & Spa, filed suit in April 2018.

Solariei, who was married at the time of his death, was diagnosed with sarcoma, which causes swelling of the lymph nodes.

He contracted sarcomas in 2011, and suffered severe bruising and organ damage.

He died in 2015.

Solari’s family, which also includes his wife and three children, is seeking unspecified damages and an injunction to prevent Solarium from discriminating against Solarieis family members.

In addition to claiming damages, Solaria also wants to have Solarieic’s family members paid for medical bills and lost wages.

Solarii, who also worked at Solaria, had been with the company for 18 years.

Solariani, meanwhile, is suing for wrongful termination, defamation, negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Solarice, the company that owns Solarium’s salon in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., declined to comment to Newsweek on the lawsuit.

Solarica, the largest solar installation company in the U, has been battling with Solaria since 2018.

The company sued Solaria for allegedly discriminating against customers who had health insurance plans that covered the Solaria program.

Solaraisi also filed a complaint in the case against Solaria in February, alleging that Solaria mischaracterized its benefits and misrepresented its own treatment of its customers.

Solariaci’s complaint said Solaria misrepresented that the Solarium program had a limited scope of coverage and that it did not include all costs associated with solarium.

Solaraici also accused Solaria of violating Solariumi’s contract and for not following the company policy regarding the use of the company-approved tanning facilities.

The case is Solaria vs. Solariciei et al. (No.

CV-12-1918) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.