Judge Won’t Budge on Move Free Joint Health Settlement

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.

On Feb. 2, plaintiffs’ motion to stay the approval of a false advertising class action settlement proposed by Schiff Nutritional International Inc. was denied by the presiding California federal magistrate, stating that their argument concerning a different supplement class action settlement that was overturned by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not affect the Schiff Move Free class action lawsuit and settlement.

The $5 million Schiff Move Free false advertising class action settlement was originally proposed by Schiff in March of last year in the hopes of resolving claims that the supplement company falsely marketed its popular Move Free dietary supplement as a form of arthritis treatment. However, in December, plaintiffs Luis Lerma and Nick Pearson submitted a motion to stay the Schiff class action settlement, arguing the court’s preliminary approval of the Move Free false advertising class action settlement was allegedly “rendered doubtful” because of a recent decision by the 7th Circuit court to reject a previously approved NBTY glucosamine supplement false advertising class action settlement.

In November of last year, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a formerly approved $6.5 million glucosamine supplement class action settlement proposed by NBTY Inc. According to the appellate court, NBTY’s proposed class action settlement was selfish because if could not possibly provide sufficient benefits to all Class Members involved in the NBTY glucosamine supplement class action lawsuit.

However, U.S. District Judge Mitchell D. Dembin rejected Lerma and Pearson’s argument and motion to stay the Schiff Move Free class action settlement and as of this week also rejected their motion to reconsider Judge Dembin’s rejection of the original motion to stay. Judge Dembin stands and reasserts his previous decision to reject the plaintiffs’ motion, stating that there were significant differences between the Schiff class action decision and the 7th Circuit’s decision regarding the NBTY class action settlement, most notably the difference between federal and circuit law. Because of these differences, the plaintiffs’ motion to stay the Schiff Move Free false advertising class action settlement was unjustified.

According to Judge Dembin’s order:

“On the question of whether to continue or stay the settlement process, the Court finds that differences between the instant settlement agreement and the settlement agreement in Pearson, and differences in circuit law, do not require a continuance or stay in this case. Nothing new in that regard was presented to the Court in the instant Motion. The parties remain at liberty to consider modifying their settlement agreement and jointly presenting any modifications to the Court.”

In their motion to reconsider the rejected request to stay the proposed Schiff class action lawsuit, Lerma and Pearson argued that they were contacted by potential objectors who pointed out issues with the Move Free class action settlement that were very similar to the objections raised in the 7th Circuit’s opinion on the NBTY class action settlement. These alleged issues that are consistent between the Schiff class action settlement and the NBTY class action settlement include a complicated and lengthy claim form, ineffective language in the proposed labeling changes for the supplements involved in both class action lawsuits, and finally, an uncapped claims payment format.

In response to the plaintiffs’ continued attempts to stay the Schiff Move Free false advertising class action settlement, Judge Dembin has stated that all parties involved could preempt potential objectors by participating in joint negotiations and submitting amendments to the settlement.

The plaintiffs are represented by Elaine A. Ryan, Patricia N. Syverson, Manfred P. Muecke and Lindsey Gomez-Gray of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Jeffrey I. Carton of Denlea & Carton LLP, and Stewart M. Weltman.

The Schiff Move Free False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit  is Lerma, et al. v. Schiff Nutrition International Inc., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01056, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

UPDATE: Details on how to file a claim for the Schiff glucosamine joint health class action settlement are up! Find out how here.