This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Business Law
Injunctive Relief
False Advertisement

Jarrow Formulas Inc. v. Nutrition Now Inc.

Published: Jan. 11, 2001 | Result Date: Nov. 14, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV0008839 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Audrey B. Collins

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Neal T. Wiener


Defendant

Matthew C. Bures

John A. Lawrence


Facts

The plaintiff and the defendant both distribute, among other things, dietary supplements. Commencing in late
1993, the plaintiff challenged the defendantÆs label claims, contending that the labels were false and
misleading with respect to the number of bacteria stated therein to exist at time of manufacture, the number of
types of beneficial bacteria, whether refrigeration of the product was required, its matrix coating and its
potency level.
The plaintiffÆs president complained to the defendant, threatened the defendant with litigation, complained to
the industry trade association without success, and communicated its claims to the public through flyers
distributed to retail outlets and at trade shows.
The defendant disputed the plaintiffÆs contentions, and stood by its product. The plaintiff took little further
action between 1993 and 2000, and during this period, the defendantÆs product became one of the best selling
probiotic products on the market.
In August 2000, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant seeking damages and injunctive relief. Rather
than answer, the defendant immediately filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment
on the grounds that the relevant statute of limitation had run, and that any relief otherwise available to the
plaintiff was barred by the plaintiffÆs laches in waiting seven years to sue while the defendant built its product
into an industry leader.

Damages

The plaintiff sought disorgement of profits and injunctive relief.

Other Information

<P>The plaintiffÆs motion for reconsideration is set for hearing on Jan. 8, 2001, before Judge Audrey Collins.</P>


#94812

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390