Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`Joel D. Smith (State Bar No. 244902)
`Sean L. Litteral (State Bar No. 331985)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
`
` jsmith@bursor.com
`
` slitteral@bursor.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`VANESSA GONZALEZ, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`PERFORMIX LLC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
` Case No.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiff Vanessa Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all other similarly
`
`situated purchasers (hereafter the “Class”), brings this consumer class action against Performix
`
`LLC (“Defendant”) for the distribution, advertisement, and sale of dietary supplement capsules
`
`sold as SST Timed Release Metabolism (the “Product”) and alleges as follows:
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A)
`
`because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all members of the proposed
`
`class are in excess of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and members of the
`
`proposed class are citizens of states different from Defendant. This Court also has supplemental
`
`jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`2.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this Court is the proper venue for this action
`
`because Plaintiff is a citizen of California and resides in this District, and because Plaintiff
`
`purchased her Product in this District. Moreover, Defendant distributed, advertised, and sold the
`
`Product, which is the subject of the present complaint, in this District.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Vanessa Gonzalez is an individual domiciled in Modesto, California. In
`
`January 2020, Plaintiff Gonzalez purchased SST Timed Release Metabolism from a GNC Store
`
`located in Modesto, California. She purchased these capsules for herself. In doing so, Plaintiff
`
`Gonzalez relied upon Defendant’s advertising, packaging, labeling and other promotional
`
`materials, which were jointly prepared and approved by Defendant and its agents and disseminated
`
`through advertising media containing the misrepresentations, concealments and unlawful claims
`
`alleged herein. Plaintiff Gonzalez would not have purchased Defendant’s capsules if she had
`
`known that they were unlawful to sell under California law.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Performix LLC is a Colorado company with its principal place of
`
`business in New York, New York. At times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant has advertised,
`
`marketed, and sold a variety of cosmetic products, including that at issue, to consumers throughout
`
`the United States and the State of California. Defendant has sold the Product directly to consumers
`
`via the Internet and through third-party retail stores throughout the United States, including in this
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 3 of 14
`
`
`
`District.
`
`The Labelling Requirements for Dietary Supplements
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`5.
`
`In 2020, the dietary supplements market in the U.S. was estimated at $46 Billion,
`
`and the global market for dietary supplements is expected to grow to $298.5 Billion by 2027.1
`
`6.
`
`For decades, consumers have been prioritizing their health and wellness through the
`
`use of dietary supplements. That interest took on even greater resonance when the COVID-19
`
`pandemic struck last year, with millions of American consumers seeking out ways to stay healthy
`
`and boost their immunity.
`
`7.
`
`According to leading market research firm IRI, spurred by the pandemic, the
`
`vitamin and supplement category has skyrocketed. IRI calculates that vitamin, mineral and
`
`supplement sales have risen 21% since the pandemic began, with market shares of certain types of
`
`vitamins and supplements increasing exponentially. Crowe, Emily, Behind the growth in the
`
`dietary supplement, vitamin market.
`
` Smart Brief
`
`(March 3, 2021)
`
`(accessible at:
`
`https://www.smartbrief.com/original/2021/03/behind-growth-dietary-supplement-vitamin-market).
`
`8.
`
`Larry Levin, executive vice president of consumer and shopper marketing at IRI
`
`states that: “Prior to COVID-19, 80% of consumers were using vitamins, minerals and supplements
`
`as part of their ritual anyway, but I think the pandemic just strengthened their commitment to the
`
`product category.” Id.
`
`9.
`
`IRI data shows that buying vitamins and supplements has been at the forefront of
`
`consumers’ minds since the early days of the pandemic, with 35% of households buying vitamins
`
`in the four weeks ending April 5, 2020. Id. The momentum has continued, with 40.6 million
`
`households purchasing vitamins in January 2021, compared to 35.5 million the prior year.
`
`According to Mr. Levin, “When you think about the impact that category has on our lifestyle, it’s
`
`really profound.” Id.
`
`
`1
`https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210219005385/en/Global-Dietary-
`Supplements-Market-Report-2020-Market-to-Reach-298.5-Billion-by-2027---U.S.-Market-is-
`Estimated-at-46-Billion-While-China-is-Forecast-to-Grow-at-12.7-CAGR---
`ResearchAndMarkets.com.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 4 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`10.
`
`The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated more than ever that consumers will
`
`seek to support their health through dietary supplements and, in making those critical purchasing
`
`decisions, must be able to trust that labels and claims for dietary supplements are truthful,
`
`substantiated, and meet all legal requirements to be lawfully sold over the counter.
`
`11.
`
`The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (the
`
`“FFDCA” or the “Act”), as amended by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of
`
`1994, Pub. L. No. 103–417, 108 Stat. 4325 (“DSHEA”), as well as the regulations implementing
`
`the FFDCA and DSHEA set forth the legal requirements for labelling and selling dietary
`
`supplements. These requirements are fully incorporated into California’s Sherman Food, Drug,
`
`and Cosmetic Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 109875 et seq. (“Sherman Law”).
`
`12.
`
`Under the FFDCA, a “drug” is defined, in part, as an “article[] intended for use in
`
`the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals” or an
`
`“article[] (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or
`
`other animals.”
`
`13.
`
`Under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), the FDA must approve new drugs before
`
`they can be sold on the market. The FFDCA creates an exemption from this pre-approval process
`
`for dietary supplements “intended to affect the structure or function of the body” if the dietary
`
`supplements carry a prominent FDA disclaimer on the product labels and advertising.
`
`14.
`
`Under these regulations, supplement companies like Defendant are prohibited from
`
`labeling, marketing, or selling dietary supplements bearing claims that “describe[] the role of a
`
`nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans, [or that]
`
`characterize[] the documented mechanism by which a nutrient or dietary ingredient acts to
`
`maintain such structure or function” (known as “structure/function claims”), unless the label carries
`
`a prominent disclaimer (the “DSHEA Disclaimer”) on each panel bearing such claims. See 21
`
`U.S.C. §§ 321(g)(1), 331(d), 343(r)(1)(B), 343(r)(6), 355(a); 21 C.F.R. § 101.93(d) (“On product
`
`labels and in labeling (e.g., pamphlets, catalogs), the disclaimer shall appear on each panel or page
`
`where there [is a structure/function claim].”).
`
`15.
`
`The DSHEA Disclaimer must be prominent and bolded, and it must read:
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 5 of 14
`
`
`
`These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug
`Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat,
`cure, or prevent any disease.
`
`21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(6)(C); see also 21 C.F.R. § 101.93(b)-(e).
`
`16.
`
`As one Court recently explained, the DSHEA Disclaimer requirement is important
`
`for consumer safety:
`
`The disclaimer requirement aligns with the FDA’s recognition that
`few dietary supplements have been the subjects of adequately
`designed clinical trials. Without the disclaimer, structure/function
`claims convey therapeutic drug claims, thereby encouraging self-
`treatment without the benefit of a medical diagnosis or treatment.
`The point of the disclaimers are to make sure that consumers
`understand that structure/function claims are not reviewed by [the]
`FDA prior to marketing, and to caution consumers that dietary
`supplements bearing such claims are not for therapeutic uses.
`
`Arora v. GNC Holdings, Inc., No. 19-cv-02414-LB, 2019 WL 6050750, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15,
`
`2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
`
`17.
`
`Dietary supplements that do not bear the required DSHEA Disclaimer on all panels
`
`with structure/function claims, and/or the disclaimer lacks the prominence required, are
`
`misbranded and unlawful. 21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(1)(B), (r)(6); 21 C.F.R. § 101.93(d).
`
`18. Moreover, such products qualify as “drugs” under the FFDCA because they are
`
`marketed with structure/function claims but do not include the DSHEA Disclaimer. See 21 U.S.C.
`
`§§321(g)(1), 343(r)(6). To avoid being regulated as drugs under the FFDCA, dietary supplements
`
`bearing structure/function claims must comply with the DSHEA Disclaimer requirements. Id.
`
`19. Misbranded dietary supplements and/or unapproved drugs are unlawful and cannot
`
`be sold legally under federal and identical California law. 21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 333.
`
`Defendant Performix LLC’s Unlawful Advertising, Sale and Labeling of the Product
`
`20.
`
`Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant Performix LLC continues to advertise, sell,
`
`and label its product in violation of the statutes referred to herein.
`
`21.
`
`In or around January 2020, Plaintiff purchased Defendant Performix LLC’s
`
`vitamins. However, as the photograph below demonstrates, Defendant’s Product does not comply
`
`with the laws and regulations set out herein.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 6 of 14
`
`
`
`22.
`
`The left-facing panel (of which clear photos are not readily available) of
`
`Defendant’s SST Timed Release Metabolism explicitly states under the heading “ENERGY AND
`
`METABOLISM,” that “Performix SST is powered by Caffeine and Capsimax to accelerate your
`
`body’s metabolism, provide sustained energy, and support fat breakdown.” (emphasis added).
`
`Defendant also mentions that “The inclusion of clinically-tested Capsimax, a naturally-derived,
`
`highly active concentrate of natural capsaicin which has been shown to increase resting energy
`
`expenditure by about 100 calories a day, allows Performix SST to accelerate your own body’s
`
`metabolism to provide energy.” (emphasis added). Defendant further mentions, under the heading
`
`“FOCUS,” that “Performix SST is powered by Caffeine, Teacrine, and Sensoril to promote
`
`focus, clarity, concentration, and alertness.” (emphasis added). Each of these statements
`
`constitutes a structure/function claim. However, none of these statements are accompanied by the
`
`requisite DSHEA Disclaimer on that panel.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiff’s Purchase of the Product
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff purchased the Product during the relevant class period. Prior to purchasing
`
`the Product, Plaintiff saw, heard, and relied upon packaging, labeling, advertisements,
`
`representations and statements made by Defendant, including advertisements and labels set forth
`
`above.
`
`24.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s representations, sale, and offer for sale, of the Product,
`
`Plaintiff believed that the Product was lawful, correctly branded, subject to a governmental review
`
`and approval process, and had therapeutic value, including that they were intended to prevent or
`
`treat disease.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s
`
`conduct described herein. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product had she known that the
`
`Product was unlawful to sell. Plaintiff otherwise paid more for the Product than had she known the
`
`truth about it and that it was unlawful to sell.
`
`26.
`
`If Plaintiff was confident that the marketing and sale of the Product was lawful,
`
`truthful, and non-misleading, Plaintiff may purchase the Product in the future. At present,
`
`however, Plaintiff cannot purchase the Product because Plaintiff cannot be confident that it is
`
`lawful and that its labeling is truthful and non-misleading.
`
`27.
`
`On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff issued a pre-suit demand for corrective action to
`
`Defendant, notifying it of its violations of California law. See Exhibit A. Defendant refused to
`
`repair or correct its violations, thus requiring Plaintiff to file this action.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`28.
`
`Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself, and as a class
`
`action on behalf of the following putative classes (the “Class”):
`
`Nationwide Class
`
`All individual residents of the United States who purchased the Product through the date of
`
`class certification. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant and all directors, officers,
`
`employees, partners, principals, shareholders and agents of Defendant; (2) Any currently
`
`sitting United States District Court Judge or Justice, and the current spouse and all other
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`persons within the third-degree of consanguinity to such judge/justice; and (3) Class
`
`Counsel.
`
`California Sub-Class
`
`All individual residents of the State of California who purchased the Product through the
`
`date of class certification. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant and all directors,
`
`officers, employees, partners, principals, shareholders and agents of Defendant; (2) Any
`
`currently sitting United States District Court Judge or Justice, and the current spouse and all
`
`other persons within the third-degree of consanguinity to such judge/justice; and (3) Class
`
`Counsel.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definitions if further investigation and
`
`discovery indicates that the Class definitions should be narrowed, expanded, or otherwise
`
`modified.
`
`30.
`
`Numerosity and Ascertainability: Plaintiff does not know the exact number of
`
`members of the putative classes. Due to Plaintiff’s initial investigation, however, Plaintiff is
`
`informed and believes that the total number of Class members is at least in the tens of thousands,
`
`and that members of the Class are numerous and geographically dispersed throughout the United
`
`States and California. While the exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at
`
`this time, such information can be ascertained through appropriate investigation and discovery,
`
`including Defendant’s records, either manually or through computerized searches.
`
`31.
`
`Typicality and Adequacy: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the proposed
`
`Class, and Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the proposed
`
`Class. Plaintiff does not have any interests that are antagonistic to those of the proposed Class.
`
`Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in the prosecution of this type of
`
`litigation.
`
`32.
`
`Commonality: The questions of law and fact common to the Class members, some
`
`of which are set out below, predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class
`
`members:
`
`a. whether Defendant committed the conduct alleged herein;
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`b. whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes the violations of laws alleged herein;
`
`c. whether Defendant’s labeling, sale and advertising set herein are unlawful, untrue,
`
`or are misleading, or reasonably likely to deceive;
`
`d. whether the Product are adulterated and/or misbranded under the California Health
`
`& Safety Code and identical federal law;
`
`e. whether Defendant knew or should have known that the representations were false
`
`or misleading;
`
`f. whether Defendant knowingly concealed or misrepresented material facts for the
`
`purpose of inducing consumers into spending money on the Product;
`
`g. whether Defendant’s representations, concealments and non-disclosures concerning
`
`the Product are likely to deceive the consumer;
`
`h. whether Defendant’s representations, concealments and non-disclosures concerning
`
`the Product violate the UCL and/or the common law;
`
`i. whether Defendant should be permanently enjoined from making the claims at issue;
`
`and
`
`j. whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to restitution and damages.
`
`33.
`
`Predominance and Superiority: Common questions, some of which are set out
`
`above, predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. A class action is
`
`the superior method for the fair and just adjudication of this controversy. The expense and burden
`
`of individual suits makes it impossible and impracticable for members of the proposed Class to
`
`prosecute their claims individually and multiplies the burden on the judicial system presented by
`
`the complex legal and factual issues of this case. Individualized litigation also presents a potential
`
`for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer
`
`management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and
`
`comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of Defendant’s liability. Class treatment
`
`of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and claimants are before this Court for consistent
`
`adjudication of the liability issues.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`34. Manageability: The trial and litigation of Plaintiff’s and the proposed Class’ claims
`
`are manageable. Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
`
`Class, making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a
`
`whole.
`
`35.
`
`Notice: If necessary, notice of this action may be affected to the proposed Class
`
`through publication in a manner authorized in the California Rules of Court, Civil Code, and/or the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, Class members may be notified of the pendency of this
`
`action by mail and/or email, through the distribution records of Defendant, third party retailers, and
`
`vendors.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
`(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.)
`(Unlawful and Unfair Prongs of the Act)
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations contained in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed California Sub-
`
`Class against Defendant.
`
`38.
`
`California Business and Professions Code § 17200 prohibits “any unlawful, unfair
`
`or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” For
`
`the reasons discussed above, Defendant has engaged in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive acts, and
`
`untrue and misleading advertising in violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200.
`
`39.
`
`As alleged herein, Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim as Plaintiff has suffered
`
`injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s actions. Specifically,
`
`Plaintiff purchased the Product for her own personal use. In so doing, Plaintiff relied upon the
`
`representations referenced above. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product had she known
`
`that the Product was unlawful to sell in California and the United States.
`
`40.
`
`Unlawful Business Practices: Defendant’s actions, as alleged herein, constitute
`
`illegal and unlawful practices committed in violation of the Business & Professions Code §17200.
`
`41.
`
`As alleged herein, Defendant has violated provisions of the FDCA, as amended by
`
`DSHEA, and implementing regulations, and in turn, the California Health & Safety Code,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`including, at least, the following sections: 21 C.F.R. § 101.93(b); 21 U.S.C. § 403(r)(6)(C); 21
`
`U.S.C. § 343(r)(6); and 21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 333.
`
`42.
`
`As alleged herein, Defendant’s conduct, including the above violations, violates the
`
`provisions of the California Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code §
`
`109875 et seq. (the “Sherman Law”), including, but not limited to, the following sections: §
`
`110100; § 110395; § 110398; § 110400.
`
`43.
`
`In addition, Defendant has committed unlawful business practices by, inter alia,
`
`making the representations and omissions of material facts, as set forth more fully herein, and
`
`violating California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq., and the common law.
`
`44.
`
`In addition, Defendant has unlawfully manufactured, advertised, and disseminated
`
`false advertisements of the Product, and that the product advertising and packaging contain false or
`
`misleading statements about the Product in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 which govern
`
`Defendant’s conduct.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff and the California Sub-Class reserve the right to allege other violations of
`
`law which constitute other unlawful business acts or practices. Such conduct is ongoing and
`
`continues to this date.
`
`46.
`
`Unfair Business Practices: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 also
`
`prohibits any “unfair ... business act or practice.”
`
`47.
`
`Defendant’s acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices and non-disclosures as
`
`alleged herein also constitute “unfair” business acts and practices within the meaning of Business
`
`& Professions Code § 17200 et seq. in that its conduct is substantially injurious to consumers,
`
`offends public policy, and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous as the gravity of the
`
`conduct outweighs any alleged benefits attributable to such conduct.
`
`48.
`
`There were reasonably available alternatives to further Defendant’s legitimate
`
`business interests, other than the conduct described herein.
`
`49.
`
`Pursuant to section 17203 of the California Business & Professions Code, Plaintiff
`
`and the California Sub-Class seek an order of this court enjoining Defendant from continuing to
`
`engage in unlawful and unfair business practices and any other act prohibited by law, including,
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`but not limited to: (a) selling, marketing, or advertising the Product with representations set forth
`
`above; (b) engaging in any of the illegal, misleading, unlawful and/or unfair conduct described
`
`herein; and (c) engaging in any other conduct found by the Court to be illegal, misleading,
`
`unlawful, and/or unfair conduct.
`
`50.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter such orders or judgments as may
`
`be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money which may have been acquired by
`
`means of such illegal practices as provided in Business & Professions Code § 17203, and for such
`
`other relief as set forth below.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff engaged counsel to prosecute this action and is entitled to recover costs and
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees according to proof at trial.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by this reference the allegations contained in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against
`
`Defendant.
`
`78.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s unlawful and misleading labeling, marketing, and sale of
`
`the Product, Defendant was enriched at the expense of Plaintiff.
`
`79.
`
`Defendant sold Product to Plaintiff that was not capable of being sold legally and
`
`that was worthless.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiff paid a premium price for the Product.
`
`Thus, it is against equity and good conscience to permit Defendant to retain the ill-
`
`gotten benefits received from Plaintiff and the Nationwide Subclass members given that the
`
`Product was not what Defendant purported it to be.
`
`82.
`
`It would be unjust and inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit, warranting
`
`restitutionary disgorgement to Plaintiff and Class members of all monies paid for the Product,
`
`and/or all monies paid for which Plaintiff and the Class members did not receive benefit.
`
`83.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff and Class
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 13 of 14
`
`members have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and as representative of all other persons
`
`similarly situated, prays for judgment against Defendant, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`An order certifying that the action may be maintained as a Class Action under Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 23;
`
`2.
`
`An order permanently enjoining Defendant from pursuing the policies, acts, and
`
`practices complained of herein;
`
`3.
`
`An order requiring Defendant to pay restitution to Plaintiff and all members of the
`
`Class;
`
`Class;
`
`4.
`
`An order requiring Defendant to pay damages to Plaintiff and all members of the
`
`5.
`
`An order requiring Defendant to pay punitive damages to Plaintiff and all members
`
`of the Class;
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`For pre-judgment interest from the date of filing this suit;
`
`For reasonable attorneys’ fees;
`
`Costs of this suit; and,
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`Dated: August 20, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`
`By:
`
` /s/ L. Timothy Fisher
`
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`Joel D. Smith (State Bar No. 244902)
`Sean L. Litteral (State Bar No. 331985)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00836 Document 1 Filed 08/20/21 Page 14 of 14
`
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
` jsmith@bursor.com
`slitteral@bursor.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`13
`
`