Gaspari Nutrition in Consumer Class Action Over Marketing Claims for Bodybuilding Supplement
Gaspari Nutrition Inc. is aggressively trying to settle a consumer class action suit quickly and quietly in California federal court. In fact, the supplement manufacturer recently took a proposed settlement deal to a California federal judge for review and potential approval. In response, the federal judge tentatively approved the proposed settlement deal.
Suit Claims Gaspari Improperly Marketed Popular Bodybuilding Supplement Novedex XT
The proposed settlement between Gaspari and a large consumer class is for $1 million. By today's class action standards and in light of the mega verdicts emerging from U.S. West Coast litigation, the proposed settlement amount appears to be quite modest (even in an economic recession). The settlement was brokered on behalf of the defendant, Gaspari Nutrition Inc., by the Los Angeles-based law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and three of its trial attorneys, Thomas Ryan, Matthew Oster, and Pantea Lili Ahmadi.
The proposed settlement would completely resolve and release the supplement manufacturer from any and all claims that it marketed the bodybuilding supplement Novedex XT as containing solely dietary supplements, when, in fact, the supplement contained an allegedly dangerous non-dietary additive, as well. Some users of the Novedex XT supplement have complained of experiencing adverse undisclosed health side effects, which may be under-reported. Those reported adverse health side effects include impotence and loss of libido.
Mechanics of the Tentatively-Approved, Proposed Settlement Deal
The presiding judge in the case, the Honorable Gary A. Feess of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California, recognized that the proposed settlement would offer partial reimbursement to the thousands of consumers who purchased the popular bodybuilding supplement. According to Judge Feess, the proposed settlement between Gaspari and the consumer class met the applicable requirements for being both fair and reasonable. However, the judge still stopped short of granting full and permanent approval to the proposed settlement deal. It seems his offered rationale for withholding complete approval was largely procedural. Instead, Judge Feess preferred to grant only preliminary approval to the proposed settlement deal until the case's attorneys tendered the required and standardized class action opt-out forms for accepting the proposed settlement.