Rosales v. FitFlop USA
|Case Name||Rosales v. FitFlop USA|
|Jurisdiction||US District Court for S.D. CA|
Defendant FitFlop manufactures and retails footwear featuring an unstable sole (known as "Microwobbleboard Technology") which supposedly confers health benefits on users. The sole moves slightly as a wearer walks, allegedly providing increased muscle use and attendant health benefits. FitFlop's marketing alleges that these health claims are supported by scientific studies. However, independent studies show that wearing shoes like the FitFlop actually confer no benefit beyond that of ordinary running shoes. As a result of their deceptive marketing practices, Defendant was able to charge a premium for their products that consumers would not pay for shoes that do not confer the promised benefits.
|Final Approval Date||04/28/2014|
|Dismissal of Last Appeal||10/24/2014|
Second Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
|Added to Index|
NOTE: Class Counsel alleges that Objector Narkin sought a payment of $100,000 in exchange for dropping his appeal.
NOTE: Objector Narkin attempted to proceed in forma pauperis without paying the filing fee for his appeal but the Court found that he did not qualify for that status. Objector Narkin's appeal was subsequently dismissed for his failure to pay the filing fee.
|Attachments||Objection of Michael Narkin.pdf
Appeal of Objector Narkin.pdf
Narkin Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.pdf
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.pdf
Narkin Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.pdf
Order Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.pdf
Order to Pay Filing Fee.pdf
Order Dismissing Appeal for Failure to Pay Filing Fee.pdf
Narkin Appeal Docket.pdf
|Added to Index|