Delacruz v. Cytosport

Case # 11-cv-03532
Case Name Delacruz v. Cytosport
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made misleading statements regarding the healthfulness of their "Muscle Milk" branded drinks and bars. These statements claim that Muscle Milk products are "health and nutritious", despite the fact that they contain large amounts of fats, added sugars, and other unhealthy ingredients (see Complaint, paragraph 2). As a result of these misleading statements, consumers were tricked into purchasing the product, believing it to be much healthier than it actually is.

Final Approval Date 07/01/2014
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. All objections were considered and overruled.
Dismissal of Last Appeal N/A
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Second Amended Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval (Amended).pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Final Fairness Hearing Transcript.pdf
Final Approval.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Craig Smotzer

Objectors Craig Smotzer
Signers Sam P. Cannata
Attorneys Sam P. Cannata
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.
  2. Injunctive relief should not be considered in evaluating the benefit to the class.
  3. Cy pres program constitutes a marketing incentive for the Defendant.
  4. Claims rate will likely be low, since relief is made in the form of future products.
Attachments Objection of Craig Smotzer.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of William I. Chamberlain

Objectors William I. Chamberlain
Signers William I. Chamberlain
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Settlement shows evidence of self-dealing.
  2. Injunctive relief provides no benefit to the class.
  3. Cy pres provisions provide no benefit to the class and function as a marketing program for the Defendant.
  4. Incentive awards create a conflict of interest between the named plaintiff and the unnamed class members.
  5. Settlement benefits one-off purchasers more than regular purchasers, creating an intra-class conflict.

Objector Chamberlain appeared at the Final Fairness hearing, where he stated that he had not read all of the case documents and was unaware of the improvements to the settlement that occurred prior to the preliminary approval.

Attachments Objection of William I Chamberlain.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Theodore H. Frank

Objectors Theodore H. Frank
Signers Theodore H. Frank
Attorneys Theodore H. Frank
Summary
  1. Cy pres awards should not count as a benefit to the class and should not be considered in awarding attorneys' fees.
  2. Class notice costs should not be considered as a benefit to the class.

Ted Frank filed a declaration, responding to the Plaintiffs' Response to Objections. In it, he claimed Class Counsel misrepresented his work with the Center for Class Action Fairness and launched ad hominem attacks at him.

Attachments Objection of Theodore Frank.pdf
Frank Declaration in Response to Response to Objections.pdf
Reply to Frank Declaration.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated