Clausen v. Woodbolt Distribution, LLC

Background

The document is a letter from Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, doing business as Nutrabolt, requesting a pre-motion briefing schedule under the court’s individual practice rules. The plaintiffs, Dale Clausen and Timothy Duncan, brought a proposed class action concerning seven XTEND-branded dietary supplement products identified in the complaint.

According to the letter, Clausen and Duncan alleged that the products were advertised as supporting muscle growth and recovery but failed to do so because branched-chain amino acids, which were among the products’ ingredients, allegedly decreased muscle protein synthesis. The letter states that the plaintiffs asserted claims under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, express and implied warranty theories, unjust enrichment, and fraud. It also states that the plaintiffs sought money damages, injunctive relief, and class-action status.

Woodbolt’s proposed motion and scheduling requests

Woodbolt stated that it anticipated moving to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 9(b). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns federal subject-matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(2) concerns personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Rule 9(b) requires fraud allegations to be stated with particularity.

Woodbolt argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to represent purchasers of six products that they allegedly did not buy. It also argued that the complaint did not plausibly state a claim because the plaintiffs relied on an article concerning branched-chain amino acids, while the products contained multiple ingredients and their labels referred to supporting muscle growth and recovery rather than stimulating muscle protein synthesis or producing an anabolic response. Woodbolt further asserted that the warranty, fraud, New York General Business Law, Magnuson-Moss, unjust enrichment, and injunctive-relief claims had additional defects.

Woodbolt requested that its opening motion papers be due December 20, 2019, with opposition and reply deadlines set later. It also asked to adjourn the initial conference, then scheduled for December 10, 2019, to January 21, 2020. The plaintiffs’ counsel consented to an adjournment.

Court’s action

Judge Lorna G. Schofield marked the request “GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.” The court adjourned the initial conference to December 12, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., rather than adopting the proposed January 21 date. The court required the parties to file pre-initial-conference materials and directed the plaintiffs to respond to Woodbolt’s letter. The response was to include a briefing schedule, which could account for the December holidays.

The order did not rule on Woodbolt’s anticipated motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs’ standing, the sufficiency of any claim, or the merits of the underlying allegations. The ruling was therefore a procedural scheduling order.