Lerma v. Schiff Nutrition International

Case # 11-cv-01056
Case Name Lerma v. Schiff Nutrition International
Jurisdiction US District Court for S.D. CA
Summary

Defendants market and retail a joint health supplement under the brand name "Move Free Advanced".  Defendants claim that the supplement will relieve and reduce the major symptoms of arthritis.  However, Plaintiffs allege, Defendants have not conducted the necessary clinical studies to make these affirmative claims.  As a result of this practice, consumers were lead to purchase a product that did not offer the advertised benefits.

Final Approval Date 11/03/2015
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were overruled.
  3. Objector Hammack appealed the Final Approval.
  4. Class counsel motioned for an appeal bond of $31,626 ($2,500 in taxable costs and $29,126 in delayed administrative costs).
  5. The Court granted an appeal bond of $2,500 (all documents attached below).
  6. Concurrently with prosecuting an appeal, Objector-Appellant Hammack motioned for $125,000 in attorneys' fees, alleging an improvement in the settlement of $500,000.
  7. The Court denied Objector-Appellant Hammack's motion for fees, noting that "It takes more than a little bit of hubris to challenge the fairness of a settlement, on the one hand, and seek fees for having helped bring about the allegedly unfair result." (see Order Denying Hammack Motion for Fees at 6:16-18, below)
  8. Objector-Appellant Hammack voluntarily withdrew her appeal.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 05/06/2016
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Third Amended Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Defendant's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Ashley Hammack

Objectors Ashley Hammack
Signers Ashley Hammack
Bradley D. Salter
Attorneys Bradley D. Salter
Summary
  1. Relief is inadequate and illusory.
  2. Claims process is overly burdensome and class members should have an opportunity to correct deficient claims.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
  4. Class representative incentive awards are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Ashley Hammack.pdf
Appeal of Objector Hammack.pdf
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Hammack Appeal.pdf
Hammack Response to Motion to Dismiss.pdf
Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Hammack Appeal.pdf
Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Hammack Appeal.pdf
Plaintiffs' Motion for Appeal Bond from Objector Hammack.pdf
Hammack Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Reply in Support of Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Order Granting in Part Motion for Appeal Bond.pdf
Hammack Motion for Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Hammack Motion for Fees.pdf
Order Denying Hammack Motion for Fees.pdf
Hammack Motion to Dismiss Appeal.pdf
Hammack Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Charles M. Thompson

Objectors Charles M. Thompson
Signers Charles M. Thompson
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Claims process is overly burdensome.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and should be based on actual recovery by the class.
  3. An excessive number of documents have been redacted or filed under seal.
Attachments Objection of Charles M. Thompson.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated