Mullins

Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp.

Good Law
178 F. Supp. 3d 867·2016 WL 1534784·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51139
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 15, 2016Case No. 13-cv-01271-RSCalifornia17,247 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Seeborg, J.

ORDER RULING ON EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Kathie Sonner 1 contends defendant Premier Nutrition Corporation peddles what amounts to worthless snake oil: Joint Juice, a liquid dietary supplement containing glucosamine hydrochloride (“glucosamine”) and chondroitin sulfate (“chondroitin”). Joint Juice advertisements and packages encourage readers to drink the product to help keep joints flexible and lubricated. According to Sonner, the real aim of these advertisements is impliedly to promote Joint Juice as a remedy for pain and stiffness in arthritic joints. In an effort to relieve joint pain and stiffness, Sonner contends she bought a six-pack of Joint Juice, drank a few bottles, but was ultimately dissatisfied with the product. Armed with numerous meta-analyses, clinical trials, treatment protocols, and expert reports, Sonner now argues that glucosa-mine and chondroitin do not and cannot palliate arthritic joints or improve the function of healthy joints, as Premier impliedly and expressly advertises. To remedy what she contends amounts to consumer fraud, she asserts claims for violations of California’s Unfair…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.