Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-03257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty's Co., Judge Roman stayed the case pending a Ninth Circuit decision and denied dismissal.
The named plaintiffs and the proposed group of similarly situated people remain in a paused case against The Nature's Bounty's Co.; the court did not decide whether the claims are legally valid.
What happened
In Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty's Co., purchasers alleged that the company made false statements about the health benefits of its Osteo Bi-Flex joint-health supplements. They brought warranty, unjust-enrichment, negligent-misrepresentation, and fraud claims, along with claims under consumer-protection laws in several states.
The company asked the court to pause the case while the Ninth Circuit considered a similar dispute involving the same product line, label statements, and scientific studies. It also asked for dismissal, arguing that federal food-and-drug law preempted the claims or that the complaint failed to state valid claims. The plaintiffs opposed both requests.
Judge Roman granted the request to pause the case because the two actions substantially overlapped and the Ninth Circuit’s decision could clarify an important legal issue. He denied the request for dismissal without prejudice with leave to refile after the Ninth Circuit issues its decision.
The detailed version
- Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co. · No. 7:20-cv-03257
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 5, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers from different states, sued The Nature's Bounty's Co. over alleged false statements about the health benefits of its Osteo Bi-Flex product line. The products are joint-health supplements containing glucosamine hydrochloride. The complaint asserted common-law claims for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent representation, and fraud, as well as claims under consumer-protection laws in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington.
The Motions
The defendant moved to stay, or pause, the case while the Ninth Circuit considered Seegert v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., No. 20-55486. It argued that Seegert substantially overlapped with this case because the actions involved the same alleged label statements, the same four Osteo Bi-Flex products, and the same scientific studies. The defendant alternatively sought dismissal, arguing that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted the plaintiffs' claims or that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim.
The plaintiffs argued that a stay was unwarranted because the Ninth Circuit's Seegert appeal relied on a preemption ruling that the Ninth Circuit had later overturned in another case. They also argued that the defendant's separate preemption and pleading arguments did not justify dismissal.
Court's Analysis
The court applied factors addressing the parties' interests, the burden of delay, judicial efficiency, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest. It found significant overlap between the two actions. Both concerned alleged false statements about glucosamine's joint-health benefits, the same Osteo Bi-Flex product line, similar state consumer-protection claims, and whether those claims could be preempted by the same federal law. The opinion also states that the defendant in Seegert was its subsidiary.
The court concluded that waiting for the Ninth Circuit's decision would promote efficiency and reduce the risk of conflicting decisions. It found that a temporary delay would not unduly prejudice either side because the central dispute was legal rather than dependent on unavailable witnesses, fading memories, or lost documents. The court did not decide whether the Ninth Circuit's earlier ruling had overturned the preemption holding discussed in Seegert, explaining that the pending appeal could provide guidance and appeared close to a decision.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the defendant's request to stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Seegert. It DENIED the defendant's request for dismissal without prejudice with leave to refile after the Ninth Circuit issues its opinion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 25. The court did not decide the merits of the defendant's dismissal arguments.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.