Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
This settlement is closed!
Please see what other class action settlements you might qualify to claim cash from in our Open Settlements directory!
A class action settlement has been reached, resolving allegations that FitFlop Footwear was deceptively advertised as providing health benefits that they did not allegedly deliver. If you purchased eligible FitFlop Footwear in the United States between Jan. 1, 2007 and Jan. 8, 2014, you may be entitled to receive between $25 and $100 from the FitFlop class action settlement.
Who’s Eligible
Class Members include anyone who purchased eligible FitFlop Footwear in the United States from Jan. 1, 2007 to Jan. 8, 2014. Eligible FitFlop Footwear includes all FitFlop-branded footwear with Microwobbleboard technology. A full list of eligible FitFlop Footwear can be found at the FitFlop settlement website.
Potential Award
$25 – $100. The amount of the cash payment you may be entitled to under the proposed FitFlop class action settlement depends on the number and type of eligible FitFlop Footwear that you purchased during the settlement period. If you purchased FitFlop Footwear in Category 1, you are entitled to receive an initial amount of $25 and a maximum of $60, depending on the amount purchased. If you purchased FitFlop Footwear in Category 2, you are entitled to receive an initial amount of $40 and a maximum of $100, depending on the amount purchased.
Proof of Purchase
If you request an award for two or fewer pairs of eligible FitFlop Footwear, no Proof of Purchase is necessary. However, if you request an award for more than two pairs of eligible FitFlop Footwear, you must provide Proof of Purchase for each pair.
Claim Form Deadline
6/27/14
Case Name
Rosales v. FitFlop USA LLC, Case No. 3:11-cv-973-W-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Case Summary
The FitFlop Footwear settlement resolves a class action lawsuit claiming that FitFlop USA LLC, FitFlop Limited, Brand Slam Ltd. and Marcia Dyann Kilgore engaged in deceptive conduct by advertising that FitFlop Footwear could provide a variety of health and fitness benefits. Under the terms of the FitFlop class action settlement, the defendants agree to provide a settlement fund of $5.3 million to resolve the claims.
The defendants have denied the allegations but agreed to a class action settlement that was preliminarily approved on Dec. 19, 2013.
Final Hearing
4/28/14
Settlement Website
www.fitflopsettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Rosales v. FitFlop USA LLC
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 35109
Seattle, WA 98124-5109
Phone: (800) 203-8691
Fax: (206) 876-5201
info@FitFlopSettlement.com
Class Counsel
BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON LLP
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
Defense Counsel
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
UPDATE 1: An objection to the FitFlop class action settlement, which received final approval on April 28, 2014, has been overruled. However, the court order has been appealed. Distribution of the settlement benefits cannot commence until all appeals have been resolved in favor of the class action settlement.
UPDATE 2: Payments for the FitFlop class action settlement were mailed to eligible Class Members the first week of February 2015. Average settlement checks were valued at $73.25, according to Top Class Actions viewers. Congrats to everyone who got PAID!
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru vehicle data collection class action lawsuit investigation
May 17, 2024 | Legal News
147 thoughts onFitFlop Footwear Class Action Settlement
thanks for the update I’m sure the envelope or deposit on Monday good luck to you and all us who filed a timely and valid claim
No, no deposits or checks. the case is still being appealed
Hey, anyone received any deposits or checks as of Jan, 30th 2014 which is today.lol
I also had a pending deposit of $0.00 to my account. It stated Rosales also. Nothing was deposited. Not sure if they were doing a test run to see if account was good. I saw it pending on Wednesday but no money posted.
Thank you for that comment Nicole, I never thought of that, but that makes a lot of sense. I’m sure you’re right.
I contacted the settlement administrator, and they said the appeal was NOT dismissed, and that no payments are being made at this time. Im not sure why people are on here lying about pending deposits or appeals being dismissed, but those claims are untrue. When in doubt contact the Claims Administrator
I am sorry that you think I am lying, but I assure you that I am not. I was just trying to give information to everyone. In the prenotification in my checking account it says “Rosales Action”, so since that is the person named in the lawsuit, I assume that is what the deposit is for. I will update when it shows up, with the amount. I am not trying to start false rumors, or get people excited with a lie, and I am sorry Thomas if I did something wrong by posting this information. After I update about deposit, I will not post ever again, because I was just trying to help, and I feel like I am being attacked.
Hope this is true,someone should post the moment they recieve a check.
I selected direct deposit instead of a paper check, and in my checking account history I show a pending deposit from this lawsuit scheduled for tomorrow. It doesn’t say how much, but somethings coming tomorrow.
Sorry I jumped the gun a little. The prenotification in my checking was for 2 days out, so it will be in on Friday.
If the appeal was indeed denied, then they are held to the orgininal stipulated agreement, which states they must begin to pay claims within 10 days and complete payment of all claims within 30 days.
Thanks Max, any amount stated as yet ?
No idea. I guess we’ll find out soon.
The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit, but the appeal was dismissed in October because the plaintiffs didn’t pay their court fees:
“Filed order (Deputy Clerk: DEV) Dismissing case for failure to prosecute (Cir. Rule 42-1) Pursuant to Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to pay fees., This order served on the district court shall constitute the mandate of this court. [9282265] (DEV) [Entered: 10/20/2014 10:22 AM]”
So it should be any time now.
Please quitclying Max. Its not . helping anyone. The appeal has not been dismissed. There is no documentaion of such, and the xxx defense attorney office comfirmed that the appeal has not been dismissed.
Here’s the PACER output. I guess the 9th Circuit docket is lying also. You should contact the administrator or the plaintiff attorney BTW, not the defense.
Court of Appeals Docket #: 14-55880
Docketed: 05/29/2014
Termed: 10/20/2014
Nature of Suit: 3890 Other Statutory Actions
Charlice Arnold, et al v. FitFlop USA, LLC
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Southern California, San Diego
Fee Status: Due
Case Type Information:
1) civil
2) private
3) null
Originating Court Information:
District: 0974-3 : 3:11-cv-00973-W-KSC
Court Reporter: Frank Joseph Rangus, Official Court Reporter
Trial Judge: Thomas J. Whelan, Senior District Judge
Date Filed: 05/04/2011
Date Order/Judgment: 04/28/2014
Date Order/Judgment EOD: 04/28/2014
Date NOA Filed: 05/27/2014
Date Rec’d COA: 05/28/2014
05/29/2014 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Transcript ordered by 06/26/2014. Transcript due 07/28/2014. Appellant Michael Narkin opening brief due 09/04/2014. Appellees Charlice Arnold and FitFlop USA, LLC answering brief due 10/06/2014. Appellant’s optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [9112485] (RT) [Entered: 05/29/2014 11:23 AM]
05/29/2014 2 Filed Appellant Michael Narkin motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/20/2014. [9112497] (RT) [Entered: 05/29/2014 11:27 AM]
07/03/2014 3 Received copy of District Court order filed on 07/03/2014 ORDER denying [123] motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. [9158884] (RL) [Entered: 07/07/2014 04:20 PM]
08/04/2014 4 Received Appellant Michael Narkin addendum to motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Served on 08/02/2014 [9192989] (RL) [Entered: 08/04/2014 03:45 PM]
09/24/2014 5 Filed order (RICHARD R. CLIFTON and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN) Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because we find that appellant is not indigent. Accordingly, within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall pay $505.00 to the district court as the docketing and filing fees for this appeal and file proof of payment with this court. Otherwise, the appeal will be dismissed by the Clerk for failure to prosecute, regardless of further filings. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant pays the fees, the opening brief will be due November 10, 2014; the answering brief will be due December 10, 2014; and the optional reply brief will be due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. [9252684] (SM) [Entered: 09/24/2014 03:08 PM]
10/20/2014 6 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: DEV) Dismissing case for failure to prosecute (Cir. Rule 42-1) Pursuant to Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to pay fees., This order served on the district court shall constitute the mandate of this court. [9282265] (DEV) [Entered: 10/20/2014 10:22 AM]