Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
April 26, 2022, Decided; April 26, 2022, Filed
Case No. 16-cv-06980-RS
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY AND MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS
In this false advertising class action averring violations of New York's General Business Law ("GBL") §§ 349 and 350, Lead Plaintiff Mary Beth Montera and Defendant Premier Nutrition Corporation ("Premier") each bring motions to exclude the testimony of various expert witnesses. For all the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to exclude certain opinions of Dr. Farshid Guilak is granted, and Defendant's motion to exclude some of the opinions of Dr. Derek Rucker [*2] is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's other motions to exclude testimony are denied. Plaintiff's motions to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Kevin Stone and Lance Palumbo are granted. The motions to exclude the testimony of Dr. Stuart Silverman and Dr. Daniel Grande are granted in part and denied in part. The motions to exclude testimony of Dr. Joel Steckel, Dr. William Choi, and Hal Poret are denied.1
Defendant also brings a motion to decertify the class, arguing Plaintiff does not have common proof to establish Article III standing, causation under the relevant New York laws, or damages, and thus the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) is not satisfied. Plaintiff has, however, adduced common proof one these topics and individual questions will not predominate over common issues. The motion to decertify the class is therefore denied.2
II. Procedural Background3
This case is one of numerous certified class actions pending before this Court alleging false advertising and other claims in Defendant Premier Nutrition's promotion of Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements. Each class action concerns a set of plaintiffs in a different state; this action concerns [*3] consumers in New York. In November 2021, the Court set this case for trial on May 23, 2022, the first of these related cases to proceed to trial. Defendant brings four motions to exclude expert testimony; Plaintiff brings seven motions. Defendant also brings a motion to decertify the class, relying on the expert reports it proffers and noting perceived absences in the evidence proffered by Plaintiff.
III. Legal Background and Standards
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75843 *; 2022 WL 1225031
MARY BETH MONTERA, Plaintiff, v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant.
Subsequent History: Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83676 (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2022)
Motion granted by, Motion denied by Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83680 (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2022)
Prior History: Fishon v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58655, 2022 WL 958378 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 30, 2022)
Juice, consumers, studies, statutory damages, motion to exclude, argues, damages, glucosamine, advertised, scientific, questions, predominate, methodology, expert testimony, marketing, reliable, courts, opine, actual damage, cross-examination, unreliable, causation, decertify, cases, health benefits, class member, full refund, per unit, microbiome, quotation