Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp.

Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp.

Opinion

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY AND MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS

I. Introduction

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.