Miller v. Basic Research

Case # 07-cv-00871
Case Name Miller v. Basic Research
Jurisdiction US District Court for UT
Summary

Defendants, through a network of interconnected companies, marketed a weight loss supplement under the brand name Akävar 20/50.  The product was advertised as being a guaranteed alternative to diet and exercise regimens, proven by medical research.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants marketed their product in this manner, despite knowing that the product did not deliver the promised results and had not been subject to clinical trials.  By defrauding consumers, Defendants were able to realize substantial profits.

Final Approval Date 07/28/2015
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. The Court found the Objection of Jeffrey L. Weinstein to be completely without merit and dismissed it.
  3. Objector Weinstein appealed the Final Approval, as well as the Order dismissing his objection.
  4. Class counsel motioned to dismiss Objector Weinstein's appeal.  Objector Weinstein filed a response and class counsel filed a further reply.
  5. Prior to a judgment on the motion to dismiss his appeal, Objector Weinstein voluntarily dismissed his appeal.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 10/07/2015
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
First Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Final Judgment.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jeffrey L. Weinstein

Objectors Jeffrey L. Weinstein
Signers Jeffrey L. Weinstein
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Class definition is inadequate.
  2. Claim period is inadequately defined.
  3. Print notice was not produced.
  4. Opt out rights are not adequately demonstrated to the class.
  5. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.

NOTE:  This objection was ultimately dismissed by the Court.  Objector Weinstein purchased Akävar three weeks before filing his objection, long after the product was no longer available in retail locations.  As his purchase receipt demonstrates, the product was purchased from a website that specializes in deeply discounted discontinued supplements.  Further, the Court found that Weinstein did not comply with the objection requirements, since he did not properly disclose the cases he had objected to in the previous five years.

Attachments Objection of Jeffrey L. Weinstein.pdf
Weinstein Purchase Receipt.pdf
Motion to Dismiss Weinstein Objection.pdf
Order Dismissing Weinstein Objection.pdf
Appeal of Objector Weinstein.pdf
Motion to Dismiss Weinstein Appeal.pdf
Response to Motion to Dismiss Weinstein Appeal.pdf
Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss Weinstein Appeal.pdf
Dismissal of Weinstein Appeal.pdf
Weinstein Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated