Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corporation

Background

Mary Beth Montera brought the case for New York consumers who purchased Joint Juice, a beverage containing glucosamine and chondroitin that Premier Nutrition Corporation sold and promoted. The case was tried for nine days in May and June 2022. The jury found Premier liable under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive acts and practices and deceptive or misleading advertising. Judgment was entered for Montera and the class in the amount of $12,895,454.90. The opinion states that the judgment included $8,312,450 in statutory damages and $4,583,004.90 in prejudgment interest; the jury had determined actual damages of $1,488,078.49.

Premier’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law

Premier asked the court to overturn the jury’s verdict under Rule 50. A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law asks whether a reasonable jury had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to decide for the prevailing party. Premier argued that Montera had not adequately proved injury, causation, materiality, or deceptiveness. The court found ample evidence supporting each element of both claims. Premier also raised arguments concerning a statutory safe harbor, federal preemption, and constitutional protections for its labels, but the court said those arguments had not been included in Premier’s initial Rule 50 motion. Reviewing those issues only for plain error, the court found no plainly erroneous verdict. The motion was denied.

Motion for a new trial

Premier also sought a new trial under Rule 59. The court rejected Premier’s arguments that it was entitled to a safe-harbor jury instruction, that its Seventh Amendment rights were violated, that the jury received an incorrect instruction on injury, or that marketing-strategy evidence was improperly admitted. The court also found that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, that Premier’s arguments about a tax letter were unpersuasive, and that Montera’s counsel had not improperly inflamed the jury. The motion for a new trial was denied.

Attorney fees and expenses

Montera requested $6,806,031.96 in attorney fees and $1,133,794.77 in expenses. The court concluded that fee shifting—requiring Premier to pay reasonable attorney fees directly—was appropriate under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 because the case involved allegedly fraudulent marketing directed at people suffering from joint pain and affected a large class.

The court held that the lodestar method was the proper method for calculating fees in this fee-shifting case. The lodestar method generally multiplies the reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate. The court found that Montera’s counsel had not submitted contemporaneous time records detailed enough to verify the claimed lodestar, particularly in light of concerns about overlapping work in related Joint Juice cases. The request for attorney fees was therefore denied without prejudice, allowing Montera to submit a new request with the required records.

The court also found that the expense documentation lacked enough detail to establish that the requested costs were reasonable and related to this case. The request for expenses was denied without prejudice so Montera could submit more detailed documentation.

Service award and disposition

Montera requested a $25,000 service award for her participation as the class representative. Premier did not oppose that request. The court found the amount reasonable and comparable to awards in the district, and granted the request, with the award to be paid from the judgment.

Judge Richard Seeborg denied Premier’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and denied its motion for a new trial. Montera’s motion was granted only as to the service award and was denied in all other respects, without prejudice.