Allen v. Similasan Corporation

Case # 12-cv-00376
Case Name Allen v. Similasan Corporation
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. CA

Plaintiffs allege that the package labeling on Defendant's homeopathic remedies was misleading as to the efficacy of the product.  Indeed, plaintiffs allege, there is no evidence that homeopathic remedies produce the desired results.

Final Approval Date 08/17/2017
  1. The Court denied the Final Approval on 08/09/2016, finding that the release was overbroad and that the notice program was ineffective at reaching class members.  These two factors, in conjunction, potentially prejudice thousands of class members who do not realize what they are giving up by remaining in the class.
  2. The Court granted the renewed Motion for Final Approval on 08/17/2017.
Dismissal of Last Appeal N/A
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Third Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Amici Curiae Brief in Opposition to Final Approval.pdf
Order Denying Motion for Final Approval.pdf
Order Granting Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval.pdf
Order Granting Renewed Motion for Final Approval.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of M. Frank Bednarz

Objectors M. Frank Bednarz
Signers Theodore H. Frank
Attorneys Theodore H. Frank
  1. Unnamed class members receive no relief from the settlement.
    • Injunctive relief is illusory.
  2. Class counsel and class representatives are the only ones who will receive financial compensation.
  3. Attorneys' fees show signs of self-dealing.
  4. Injunctive relief benefits all consumers, not just class members.
    • Class members are prejudiced, since they release their claims against the Defendant, to receive the same benefit as non-class members.
Attachments Objection of M. Frank Bednarz.pdf
Declaration of Theodore Frank in Support of Objection.pdf
Response to Objection.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated