Nutramax Glucosamine Class Action Lawsuits Centralized in Md.

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.

A federal panel has gone against plaintiff wishes and centralized three class action lawsuits accusing supplement manufacturer Nutramax Laboratories Inc. of falsely advertising the benefits of its joint health supplements Cosamin DS and Cosamin ASU, which are comprised of glucosamine and chondroitin.

On Dec. 17, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to centralize the Cosamin class action lawsuits in Maryland federal court after finding common questions of fact that would require significant testimony from expert witnesses. Plaintiffs had unsuccessfully argued that there were too few class action lawsuits involved to merit centralization and that they don’t involve complex issues of fact.

According to the glucosamine class action lawsuits, the supplement maker misrepresented the effects of Cosamin DS and Cosamin ASU by allegedly falsely stating that the glucosamine and chondroitin induce the regrowth of cartilage that leads to joint deterioration. One class action lawsuit, filed in California against Nutramax and Rite Aid, Wal-Mart, cites more than 20 studies indicating that glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin cannot regenerate cartilage that has worn away or broken down, contrary to the defendants’ promises. While plaintiffs argued that the preponderance of medical studies would lead to relatively simple questions for a jury to answer, the JPML was not so sure.

In its decision to approve Nutramax’s motion to consolidate the class actions, the panel decided that the Cosamin supplements and their alleged benefits would require significant expert analysis, as there are “complex scientific issues concerning the effectiveness of the involved Nutramax joint health products (Cosamin DS and/or Cosamin ASU) [that] lie at the heart of this litigation.”

Particularly important will be the Daubert hearings, according to the order. These hearings are used by both sides in a case like these false advertising class action lawsuits to streamline the testimony of expert witnesses and limit the evidence in controversy by adversarial motions. Both sides propose experts and evidence and a judge decides what information a jury might hear.

The motion to centralize is also based on the classes involved in each of the three cases, since one class action alleges a multi-state class, while the other two complaints govern New York and Florida residents. By grouping them together, the JPML is hoping to “eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (in particular with respect to class certification and discovery issues [regarding glucosamine and chondroitin supplementation]).”

A similar class action lawsuit filed in New York last month is a potential tag-along action, which may also be consolidated into the Nutramax Cosamin MDL.

By moving the action to U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the JPML will be handing off the consolidated lawsuits to U.S District Judge J. Frederick Motz, who is already handling a similar action involving the alleged false advertising of GNC glucosamine supplements, In Re: GNC Corp. TriFlex Products Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2491.

The Nutramax Glucosamine Class Action Lawsuit is In Re: Nutramax Cosamin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2498, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland.

–Additional reporting by Anne Bucher