UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

EDWARD QUIDERA and JEREMY CAVOLO, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiffs Edward Quidera and Jeremy Cavolo (“Plaintiffs”) make the following 

allegations pursuant to the investigation of their counsel and based upon information and belief, 

except as to the allegations specifically pertaining to themselves, which are based on personal 

knowledge. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Blackstone Labs, LLC’s 

(“Defendant” or “Blackstone”) Dust X and Arson supplements containing the stimulant DMHA 

(collectively, “Supplements”).

2. DMHA is illegal and is not generally recognized among experts to be safe under 

the conditions of its intended use. Defendant is breaking the law by manufacturing and 

distributing supplements containing the stimulant DMHA and failing to disclose that they 

contain an ingredient that is illegal and not generally recognized as safe. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 1 of 82
2

3. Defendant has a long history of using illegal and unsafe ingredients in its 

products. As one magazine article noted, “the company has hawked tens of millions of dollars’ 

worth of products promising to make men stronger, bigger, last longer in the sack, and even gain 

a mental edge. For the most part, their over-the-counter powders do exactly what they claim to 

do, in part because they sometimes include compounds not approved or even banned by the 

FDA.”1

4. Even when the FDA cracks down on the illegal substances being sold by 

Blackstone, it “stay[s] ahead of the FDA simply by creating new supplements with altered 

formulas.”2

 That is what Blackstone did here. 

5. The Supplements were originally manufactured with an ingredient called DMAA, 

also a powerful, dangerous, and illegal stimulant ingredient. Dust X evolved from a product 

called Dust Extreme, containing DMAA, and Arson evolved from a product called King Cobra, 

which also contained DMAA. 

6. But in the wake of a rash of high-profile incidents relating to DMAA use, 

including the death of multiple U.S. Military servicemembers, the use of DMAA in the 

Supplements was determined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and a federal court in 

Georgia to be illegal. Consequently, federal authorities seized $19 million worth of DMAA from 

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, another company owned by one of Blackstone’s owners, Jared Wheat.

The court’s decision regarding the illegality of DMAA was subsequently affirmed by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See United States v. Undetermined Quantities

of All Articles of Finished & In-Process Foods, 936 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2019).

1 Gordy Megroz, How Two Florida Gym Rats Conquered The Shadowy World of Dietary Supplements, Men’s

Journal (March 2017). 2 Id.

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 2 of 82
3

7. Unable to use DMAA, Defendant has replaced it in the Supplements with a 

compound called “DMHA.” But, as it pertains to legality and safety, there is no difference 

between DMAA and DMHA. In fact, Mr. Wheat has explained that while “DMAA is not the 

chemical equivalent of DMHA, it does have a very similar structure and thus, the two ingredients 

could be expected to produce similar effects in humans.”

8. The FDA has made its position on DMHA clear: it is illegal. On April 10, 2019, 

the FDA sent a warning letter to Mr. Wheat regarding the use of the DMHA ingredient in his

products. The warning letter states that DMHA “is not generally recognized as safe.”3 The FDA 

explained that there is no evidence that “DMHA was lawfully marketed as a dietary ingredient in 

the United States before October 15, 1994, nor is there information demonstrating that this 

ingredient has been present in the food supply as an article used for human food in a form in 

which the food has been chemically altered.”4 Moreover, the FDA concluded that “dietary 

supplements containing DMHA as a new dietary ingredient are adulterated ... because there is 

inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not present a 

significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.”5

9. Published academic literature has confirmed that the “uncontrolled use of 

[DMHA], its physiological and psychoactive effects raise serious health implications with 

possible impact on athletes and doping practices.”6

10. Plaintiffs and class members were never informed of any of this. They are 

unsuspecting purchasers of the Supplements who were never informed that the Supplements are 

illegal and not generally recognized as safe. They therefore assert claims for fraud, breach of 

3 The FDA’s April 10, 2019 warning letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4 See Ex. A, at 2. 5 Id. at 2-3. 6 Catalani, Valeria et al. “Octodrine: New Questions and Challenges in Sport Supplements.” Brain sciences vol. 8,2 

34. 20 Feb. 2018, doi:10.3390/brainsci8020034.

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 3 of 82
4

warranty, and violations of the consumer protection laws of California and New York on behalf 

of themselves and all other similarly situated purchasers of the Supplements. 

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Edward Quidera is a citizen of California who resides in Twentynine 

Palms, California. Mr. Quidera purchased Dust X for personal use from retailer Athlete’s 

Nutrition in Twentynine Palms in the summer of 2018. Mr. Quidera paid approximately $45. 

Mr. Quidera purchased and used Defendant’s Dust X supplement based on the understanding

that the supplements were lawfully sold and did not contain illegal and unsafe stimulants. Had 

Defendant disclosed that the Supplements were unsafe and illegal, Mr. Quidera would have been 

aware of that and would not have purchased the Supplements

12. Plaintiff Jeremy Cavolo is a citizen of New York who resides in Staten Island,

New York. Mr. Cavolo purchased the Dust X supplements for personal use online from his 

residence in Staten Island on several occasions for approximately $35-45. Mr. Cavolo purchased 

and used Defendant’s Dust X supplement based on the understanding that the supplements were 

lawfully sold and did not contain illegal and unsafe stimulants. Had Defendant disclosed that the 

Supplements were unsafe and illegal, Mr. Cavolo would have been aware of that and would not 

have purchased the Supplements. 

13. Defendant Blackstone Labs, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with its 

principal place of business at 1120 Holland Dr., STE 14, Boca Raton, FL 33487. Defendant 

distributes and sells the Supplements throughout the United States. Defendant also affirmatively 

participates in the false and misleading advertising and marketing claims about the Supplements. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A) 

because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all members of the proposed 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 4 of 82
5

Class are in excess of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and Plaintiffs and most 

members of the proposed Class are citizens of states different than Defendant.

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is a 

resident of this District.

16. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant is a 

resident of this District.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Overview of the Supplements

17. Blackstone distributes and sells the Supplements, which contain the illegal 

ingredient and powerful stimulant DMHA.

18. On the packaging of the Supplements, Defendant represents that each of the 

Supplements are a “Dietary Supplement.”

19. Each of the Supplements were originally manufactured with DMAA. In videos 

on the product webpages for each of the Supplements, PJ Braun, President and CEO of 

Blackstone, explains that Dust X was intended to replace a former product called “Dust 

Extreme,” and Arson was intended to replace a product called “King Cobra.” Both Dust 

Extreme and King Cobra contained DMAA.7

20. However, after the FDA’s ban on DMAA, Defendant simply reformulated the 

Supplements with DMHA in an attempt to stay one step ahead of the proverbial sheriff. 

21. As Mr. Braun explained, “now, with the state of the supplement industry and the 

FDA, we’ve had to remove the DMAA from our products, and we put our heads together to 

figure out what the next best thing was in making this product as strong as possible.”

7 https://blackstonelabs.com/products/dust-x and https://blackstonelabs.com/products/arson (last accessed May 29, 

2020).

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 5 of 82
6

22. Mr. Wheat came up with the formulation for Arson after Mr. Braun told him he 

“really need[ed] a replacement for King Cobra.”8 But by Mr. Wheat’s own admission, DMAA 

and DMHA are so similar that they are “expected to produce similar effects in humans.”

23. Nowhere in Defendant’s labeling or marketing of the Supplements does 

Defendant disclose that the Supplements contain illegal ingredients that are not generally 

recognized as safe for use. Defendant does not disclose the true nature of the Supplements to 

consumers.

B. History Of Defendant’s Sales Of Illicit Substances

24. As a result of the very competitive landscape for manufacturers of fat burning and 

pre-workout supplements, an increasingly widespread issue in recent years has been that certain 

dietary supplement manufacturers have illegally used pharmaceutical and often dangerous drugs 

in over-the-counter supplement products without informing consumers of the true nature of the 

products or the dangers associated therewith. This is especially prevalent in the realm of 

stimulants, as discussed below. 

25. Blackstone did not come to sell illicit substances by happenstance. For years, 

Blackstone has been at the center of the controversy as it relates to illegal stimulant ingredients.

26. Blackstone’s first product was called “Super DMZ,” and it contained an illegal 

ingredient called “prohormones.” In 2013, the FDA forced Blackstone’s Super DMZ supplier, 

Mira Health Products, “to recall all those pills and officially banned prohormones, including the 

ones in Super DMZ which Blackstone listed on the bottle.” But “[n]one of that stopped 

Blackstone from continuing to sell them. In fact, at nearly the same time, the company released 

a new product called Metha-Quad Extreme, which contained prohormones. It wasn’t until 

8 Id.

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 6 of 82
7

September 2014 that Blackstone stopped selling prohormones altogether to abide by FDA 

regulations.”9

27. But that was far from the end of Blackstone’s sale of illicit substances. In April 

2015, the FDA sent a warning letter to Blackstone on account of its sale of supplements 

containing a similar illegal stimulant called “DMBA.” See Exhibit B. Upon receipt of this 

letter, Defendant immediately sold its remaining stock of DMBA products before they could be 

confiscated by the FDA.

28. On February 17, 2017, the United States executed a Search and Seizure Warrant 

at the premises of Defendant. The agents seized more than $1 million in illegal products, 

including Dust Extreme, as well as documents, and $223,430.40 in cash from Defendant on 

account of its illegal activities. 

29. More recently, on March 8, 2019, Defendant, as well as several of its principals, 

were indicted in the Southern District of Florida. The indictment charges that the defendants 

conspired to defraud the government by, among other things, knowingly marketing and selling

illegal substances as “dietary supplements,” just as it has done with its DMHA Supplements. A 

copy of the Indictment is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

C. DMHA Is An Unsafe Stimulant

30. Defendant markets its DMHA product to people it calls “crackies” who are 

seeking an “I’m cracked out type of feeling.” As Mr. Braun notes, it is a very powerful 

stimulant: “As soon as you take this, you’re gonna feel tingling, sweating, and if you don’t go to 

the gym, you’re probably gonna be a little shaky.”10

9 Gordy Megroz, How Two Florida Gym Rats Conquered The Shadowy World of Dietary Supplements, Men’s

Journal (March 2017). 10 https://blackstonelabs.com/products/dust-x and https://blackstonelabs.com/products/arson (last accessed May 29, 

2020).

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 7 of 82
8

31. DMHA is known to be dangerous. It has been banned by the United States AntiDoping Agency,11 the World Anti-Doping Agency,12 the Department of Defense,13 and the 

NCAA.14

32. DMHA has also been banned in other countries. In 2017, the Australian 

Therapeutic Goods Association banned DMHA “due to risks to human health.”15 

33. DMHA can cause high blood pressure, nausea, cerebral hemorrhage, stroke, and 

additional side effects “such as mood swings, tremor, concentration deficiency, over-stimulation, 

energy crashes, anxiety, high blood pressure, dyspnea, rapid heartbeat and heartburn.”16

34. DMHA is not “generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific 

training and experience to evaluate its safety, as having been adequately shown through scientific 

procedures ... to be safe under the conditions of its intended use.” 21 U.S.C. § 321(s). United

States v. Undetermined Quantities of All Articles of Finished & In-Process Foods, 936 F.3d 

1341, 1348-1350 (11th Cir. 2019) (concluding that DMAA is not generally recognized as safe). 

35. Scholarly literature supports this conclusion as to DMHA, finding that 

“uncontrolled use of [DMHA], its physiological and psychoactive effects raise serious health 

implications with possible impact on athletes and doping practices.”17 The study states: “[T]he

lack of experimental randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other interventional studies on 

humans has led to a complete absence of systematic reviews and meta-analytic studies related to 

11 https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/octodrine/ (last visited 10/13/19). 12 https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/wada_2020_english_prohibited_list_0.pdf (last visited 10/13/19). 13 https://www.opss.org/dietary-supplement-ingredients-prohibited-department-defense (last visited 10/13/19). 14 http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/topics/2019-20-ncaa-banned-substances (last visited 10/13/19). 15 https://www.asada.gov.au/news/supplement-ingredients-banned (last visited 10/13/19). 16 Catalani, Valeria et al. “Octodrine: New Questions and Challenges in Sport Supplements.” Brain sciences vol. 8,2 

34. 20 Feb. 2018, doi:10.3390/brainsci8020034 17 Catalani, Valeria et al. “Octodrine: New Questions and Challenges in Sport Supplements.” Brain sciences vol. 8,2 

34. 20 Feb. 2018, doi:10.3390/brainsci8020034.

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 8 of 82
9

use of Octodrine18 as a medicinal agent or food supplement.”19 As such, it cannot be said that 

DMHA is generally recognized as safe for use as directed by Defendant. Defendant knew as 

much, and intentionally failed to meet statutory requirements relevant to use of DMHA.

36. On April 10, 2019, the FDA issued warning letters to numerous distributors of 

products containing DMHA, noting that those products are adulterated, as discussed below.

D. Defendant Broke the Law By Putting DMHA In The Supplements

37. As distributor of the Supplements, Defendant had an affirmative duty to comply 

with the FDCA, as well as any parallel state statutes, including the California Sherman Law. 

38. As explained below, the inclusion of DMHA in the Supplements is illegal for two 

reasons. First, because it is not properly categorized as a “dietary supplement,” it is an illegal 

“unsafe food additive.” Second, even if it were a dietary supplement, Defendant still failed to

comply with procedures required under the FDCA. 

DMHA Is An Unsafe Food Additive 

39. In 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (“DSHEA”) was 

passed into law as an amendment to the FDCA, establishing a new framework governing the 

composition, safety, labeling, manufacturing, and marketing of dietary supplements.

40. Dietary supplements are defined by the FDCA as a “product (other than tobacco)

intended to supplement the diet” that contains one or more of the following: (1) vitamins; (2) 

minerals; (3) and herb or other botanical; (4) an amino acid; (5) a supplement meant to increase 

total dietary intake; (6) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any of 

the listed ingredient. 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(1).

18 Octodrine is another name for DMHA. 19 Id.

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 9 of 82
10

41. The Supplements do not meet the definition of a “Dietary Supplement” because 

DMHA is, in fact, a synthetically-produced “unsafe food additive.” As such, DMHA cannot be 

legally included in any over-the-counter supplement product, and the Supplements are 

adulterated. The FDA concurred with this analysis in its April 2019 warning letter, stating: 

“DMHA it is not generally recognized as safe under its conditions of use in your dietary 

supplement products. If DMHA is not a dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1) of the Act, 

dietary supplements containing DMHA would be adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the 

Act because they would contain an unsafe food additive.”

42. Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit, in analyzing the closely-related DMAA against the 

definition of “Dietary Supplement” in the FDCA, affirmed the FDA’s decision to classify 

DMAA as an “unsafe food additive.”

43. Like DMAA, Defendant synthetically produces DMHA for use in the 

Supplements. DMHA does not meet any of the criteria to be considered a “Dietary 

Supplement.” Defendant misrepresents the Supplements as “Dietary Supplement[s],” when in 

fact they are not. The Supplements are therefore adulterated. 

Defendant Failed To Comply With Requirements For New Dietary Ingredients

44. Even if the Supplements could somehow be considered “Dietary Supplements,”

which they cannot, they are still unlawfully sold because they are otherwise adulterated and 

misbranded because Defendant failed to comply with requirements for new dietary ingredients.

45. Under the FDCA, a “New Dietary Ingredient” (“NDI”) is defined as a “dietary 

ingredient that was not marketed in the United States before October 15, 1994 and does not 

include any dietary ingredient which was marketed in the United States before October 15, 

1994.” 21 U.S.C. § 350b(d).

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 10 of 82
11

46. DMHA was not marketed in the United States before 1994 (i.e. before the passage 

of the DSHEA). The FDA’s April 2019 warning letter reached an identical conclusion. The 

FDA explained that there is no evidence that “DMHA was lawfully marketed as a dietary 

ingredient in the United States before October 15, 1994, nor is there information demonstrating 

that this ingredient has been present in the food supply as an article used for human food in a 

form in which the food has been chemically altered.”20

47. Therefore, even assuming DMHA could be considered a dietary supplement, 

DMHA would still be legally considered a NDI.

48. Under the FDCA, a dietary supplement containing a NDI may only be marketed 

and sold if it meets one of two requirements:

(1) The dietary supplement contains only dietary ingredients which 

have been present in the food supply as an article used for food 

in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered 

[or]

(2) There is a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing 

that the dietary ingredient when used under the conditions 

recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary 

supplement will reasonably be expected to be safe and, at least 

75 days before being introduced or delivered for introduction 

into interstate commerce, the manufacturer or distributor of the 

dietary ingredient or dietary supplement provides the FDA with 

information, including any citation to published articles, which 

is the basis on which the manufacturer or distributor has 

concluded that a dietary supplement containing such dietary 

ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe.

21 U.S.C. § 350b(a).

49. However, Defendant has never complied with these requirements. 

50. Defendant failed to comply with the FDA’s NDI notification requirement that is 

mandated for all dietary supplements that contain NDIs which, like DMHA, have not been 

20 See Ex. A, at 2. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 11 of 82
12

“present in the food supply as articles used for food without being chemically altered.” 21 

U.S.C. § 350b(a)(1). 

51. Defendant also failed to provide the FDA with the required 75-day premarket 

notification showing a history of DMHA’s harmless use in food products/supplements or any 

other evidence of safety. 

52. What is more, Defendant could not have met the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 

350b(a) regardless, as there is no “history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the 

dietary ingredient when used under the conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling.” 

Indeed, the FDA explained:

Even if a new dietary ingredient notification had been submitted 

under section 413(a)(2) and 21 CFR 190.6, we know of no 

evidence that would establish that DMHA could be lawfully 

marketed as a new dietary ingredient [. . . .] In the absence of a 

history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that DMHA

[. . .] will reasonably be expected to be safe, dietary supplements 

containing DMHA as a new dietary ingredient are adulterated 

under sections 402(f) and 413(a) of the Act because there is 

inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that such 

ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of 

illness or injury. Introduction of such products into interstate 

commerce is prohibited under sections 301(a) and (v) of the Act 

[21 U.S.C. § 331(a) and (v)]. To the best of FDA’s knowledge, 

there is no history of use or other evidence of safety establishing 

that DMHA will reasonably be expected to be safe when used as a 

dietary ingredient.

21

53. As such, the Supplements are separately adulterated because Defendant did not 

follow the statutory procedure for introducing a NDI into commerce. Defendant failed to do this 

because it knows that DMHA is in fact an unsafe food additive, and also knows that there is no 

evidence establishing the safety of DMHA when used as recommended by Defendant. 

54. In light of the foregoing, the Supplements are:: 

21 See Ex. A. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 12 of 82
13

 misbranded under 21 U.S.C. § 343(a); 

 adulterated under 21 U.S.C. § 342(f)(1)(b); 

 not legal for sale as a Dietary Supplement under 21 U.S.C. § 331(a) (because they 

are “adulterated” and “misbranded”); 

 unsafe and adulterated under 21 U.S.C. § 350(b); 

 prohibited for sale under 21 U.S.C. § 331(v); and

 not legal for sale because it includes an article approved as a drug for which 

clinical trials have been made public under 21 U.S.C. § 331(11).

The Supplements Violate California, New York, And Federal Law

55. California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law expressly incorporates all 

food labeling requirements set forth in the FDCA (see Cal. H&S Code § 110100(a)), and further 

provides that any food is misbranded if its nutrition labeling does not conform to FDCA 

requirements (see Cal. H&S Code §§ 110665, 110670, 110673).

56. New York has also expressly adopted the federal food labeling requirements of 

§343(1) and (a)(1) into state law pursuant to New York’s Agriculture and Marketing law. N.Y. 

Agric. & Mkts. Law § 201.

57. New York's Agriculture and Marketing law incorporates the FDCA’s labeling 

provisions and, likewise, provides that food shall be deemed misbranded “[i]f its labeling is false 

or misleading in any particular.” Accordingly, a violation of federal food labeling laws is also an 

independent violation of New York law and actionable as such.

58. New York law also provides remedies, including private rights of action, for 

misbranding food under consumer protection laws, including GBL § 349, which broadly 

prohibits use of “deceptive acts or practices” in business dealings in New York.

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 13 of 82
14

59. Pursuant to the FDCA, and accordingly California and New York law, food 

products that are misbranded cannot legally be manufactured, advertised, distributed, held or 

sold. Because misbranded products cannot be legally sold or possessed, they have no economic 

or legal value. Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes who purchased the Products paid an 

unwarranted amount for these Products.

60. Defendant’s misleading and deceptive practices proximately caused harm to 

Plaintiffs and Class members. Defendants have sold Products that are worthless because they 

could not be lawfully sold to consumers.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

61. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all persons in the United States who 

purchased the Supplements (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, 

Defendant, Defendant’s affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers, and directors. Also 

excluded is any judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate 

families and judicial staff.

62. Plaintiff Quidera also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all persons who 

purchased the Supplements in California (the “California Subclass”).

63. Plaintiff Cavolo also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all persons who 

purchased the Supplements in New York (the “New York Subclass”). 

64. Members of the Class and the California and New York Subclasses are so 

numerous that their individual joinder herein is impracticable. On information and belief, 

members of the Class and the New York and California Subclasses number in excess of tens of 

thousands. The precise number of Class members and their identities are unknown to Plaintiffs

at this time but will be determined through discovery. Class members and members of the 

California and New York Subclasses may be discerned through Defendant’s records and through 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 14 of 82
15

third-party subpoenas of retailers of Defendant’s products. Class members and members of the 

California and New York Subclasses may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, 

email, and/or publication.

65. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class, California Subclass and

New York Subclass members and predominate over questions affecting only individual Class 

and New York and California Subclass members. These common legal and factual questions 

include, but are not limited to: (a) whether Defendant’s conduct violates UCC § 2-607(3)(a) 

concerning the breach of implied warranties; (b) whether the Supplements contain the ingredient 

DMHA; (c) whether the DMHA ingredient is an illegal ingredient; (d) whether Defendant was 

unjustly enriched by selling the Supplements to Plaintiffs and Class members; (e) whether 

Defendant’s conduct should be enjoined; (f) whether the Supplements are adulterated due to the 

presence of DMHA; and (g) whether the Supplements are misbranded due to the presence of 

DMHA. 

66. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the proposed Class, California 

Subclass, and New York Subclass in that Plaintiffs were exposed to Defendant’s false and

misleading marketing and promotional materials, purchased the adulterated and mislabeled 

Supplements, and suffered losses as a result of their purchases. Each Class, California Subclass,

and New York Subclass member was subjected to the same conduct, was harmed in the same 

way, and has claims for relief under the same legal theories.

67. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class, California Subclass, and New 

York Subclass because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class, California 

Subclass and New York Subclass members they seek to represent, they have retained counsel 

competent and experienced in prosecuting class actions, and they intend to prosecute this action 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 15 of 82
16

vigorously. The interests of Class, California Subclass, and New York Subclass members will 

be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.

68. The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the claims of the Class, California Subclass, and New York Subclass members. 

Each individual Class member, New York Subclass member, and California Subclass member

may lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the 

complex and extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability. Individualized 

litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial 

system presented by the complex legal and factual issues of this case. Individualized litigation 

also presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. In contrast, the class action 

device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single 

adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of 

Defendant’s liability. Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and 

claimants are before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.

69. Unless a class is certified, Defendant will retain monies received as a result of its

conduct that were taken from Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, California Subclass, and New 

York Subclass members. Unless a class-wide injunction is issued, Defendant will continue to 

commit the violations of law alleged, and the members of the Class, California Subclass, New 

York Subclass and the general public will continue to be misled.

COUNT I

Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)

70. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class and

California and New York Subclasses. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 16 of 82
17

71. Defendant, as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller of 

the Supplements, impliedly warranted that the Supplements are merchantable as dietary 

supplements.

72. The Supplements contain DMHA, which is illegal and unsafe. 

73. Defendant breached the warranty implied in the contract for the sale of the

Supplements because the Supplements could not pass without objection in the trade under the 

contract description, the goods were not of fair average quality within the description, and the 

goods were unfit for their intended and ordinary purpose because the Supplements manufactured, 

distributed, and sold by Defendant contained the dangerous stimulant DMHA, which is an unsafe

food additive and is otherwise illegal for sale as a dietary supplement in the United States. As a 

result, Plaintiffs and Class members did not receive the goods as impliedly warranted by 

Defendant to be merchantable.

74. Plaintiffs and Class members purchased the Supplements in reliance upon 

Defendant’s skill and judgment and the implied warranties of fitness for the purpose. 

75. The Supplements were not altered by Plaintiffs or Class members. 

76. The Supplements were defective when they left the exclusive control of 

Defendant.

77. Defendant knew that the Supplements would be purchased and used without 

additional testing by Plaintiffs and Class members. 

78. Defendant is a merchant with respect to the goods of this kind that were sold to 

Plaintiffs and the Class. The sale of the Supplements to Plaintiffs and Class Members contained 

an implied warranty that the Supplements were merchantable. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 17 of 82
18

79. However, Defendant breached that warranty implied in the contract for the sale of 

goods in that the Supplements are not “dietary supplements” or generally recognized as safe for 

use as directed by Defendant, as set forth in detail herein.

80. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class did not receive goods 

as impliedly warranted by Defendant to be merchantable.

81. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s breach of the implied warranty, 

Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured and harmed because they would not have 

purchased the Supplements on the same terms if they knew that they are not generally 

recognized as safe and illegal.

82. Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained damages as a proximate result of the 

foregoing breach of implied warranty in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT II

Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”),

California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.

(On Behalf of the California Subclass)

83. Plaintiff Quidera brings this claim individually and on behalf of the California 

Subclass.

84. Plaintiff Quidera and the other members of the California Subclass are 

“consumers,” as the term is defined by California Civil Code § 1761(d), because they bought the 

Supplements for personal, family, or household purposes. 

85. Plaintiff Quidera and the other members of the California Subclass have engaged 

in “transactions,” as that term is defined by California Civil Code § 1761(e). 

86. The conduct alleged in this Complaint constitutes unfair methods of competition

and unfair and deceptive acts and practices for the purpose of the CLRA, and the conduct was

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 18 of 82
19

undertaken by Defendant in transactions intended to result in, and which did result in, the sale of

goods to consumers.

87. Defendant has violated the CLRA by marketing the Supplements as dietary 

supplements but failing to inform consumers that the Supplements are not, in fact, “Dietary 

Supplements” because they contain an unsafe food additive and a non-dietary ingredient,

DMHA. Defendant also failed to inform consumers that DMHA is not generally recognized as 

safe and is illegal.

88. As a result of engaging in such conduct, Defendant has violated California Civil

Code § 1770(a)(5) and (a)(7).

89. On March 20, 2020, a CLRA demand letter was sent to Defendant via certified 

mail that provided notice of Defendant’s violation of the CLRA and demanded that Defendant 

correct, repair, replace or otherwise rectify the unlawful, unfair, false and/or deceptive practices 

complained of herein. The letter also indicated that if Defendant refused to do so, a complaint 

seeking damages in accordance with the CLRA would be filed. Defendant has failed to comply 

with the letter. Accordingly, pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780(a)(3), Plaintiff Quidera, on 

behalf of himself and all other members of the California Subclass, seeks injunctive relief, 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, and restitution of any ill-gotten gains due to 

Defendant’s acts and practices. A true and correct copy of the March 20, 2020 letter is attached 

hereto as Exhibit D. 

90. A CLRA Venue Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 19 of 82
20

COUNT III

Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),

California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

(On Behalf of the California Subclass)

91. Plaintiff Quidera brings this claim individually and on behalf of the California 

Subclass.

92. Defendant is subject to the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Bus. & Prof. Code 

§§ 17200 et seq. The UCL provides, in pertinent part: “Unfair competition shall mean and 

include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or 

misleading advertising ....”

93. Defendant’s sale of the Supplements, described herein, violated the “unlawful” 

prong of the UCL as a result of its violations of the CLRA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5) and 

(a)(7) as alleged above. A business act or practice is “unlawful” if it violates any established 

state or federal law. 

94. Defendant’s sales of Supplements containing DMHA, an illegal and unsafe 

ingredient, constitute “unlawful” business acts and practices in that they violate the FDCA, as 

amended by DSHEA, and implementing regulations, including, at least, the following sections:

a. The prohibition on introduction of adulterated dietary supplements into interstate 

commerce. 21 U.S.C. § 342(f)(1)(b)

b. The prohibition on introduction of misbranded dietary supplements into interstate 

commerce. 21 U.S.C. §§ 331, 333; and

c. The requirement prohibiting marketing claims that are “false or misleading in any 

particular.” 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1); 21 C.F.R. § 101.93(a)(3).

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 20 of 82
21

95. Each of Defendant’s violations of federal law and regulations violates California’s 

Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 109875 et seq. (the 

“Sherman Law”), including, but not limited to, the following sections:

a. Section 110100 (adopting all FDA regulations as state regulations);

b. Section 110290 (“In determining whether the labeling or advertisement of a food . . 

. is misleading, all representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, 

device, sound, or any combination of these, shall be taken into account.”);

c. Section 110390 (“It is unlawful for any person to disseminate any false 

advertisement of any food. . . . An advertisement is false if it is false or misleading 

in any particular.”);

d. Section 110395 (“It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or 

offer for sale any food . . . that is falsely advertised.”);

e. Section 110398 (“It is unlawful for any person to advertise any food, drug, device, 

or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.”);

f. Section 110400 (“It is unlawful for any person to receive in commerce any food . . . 

that is falsely advertised or to deliver or proffer for delivery any such food . . . .”); 

and

g. Section 110660 (“Any food is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in 

any particular.”).

96. Each of the challenged omissions, statements, and actions by Defendant violates 

the FDCA, as amended by DSHEA, and the Sherman Law, and, consequently, violates the 

“unlawful” prong of the UCL.

97. Defendant’s misrepresentations and other conduct, described herein, violated the 

“unfair” prong of the UCL in that Defendant’s conduct is substantially injurious to consumers, 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 21 of 82
22

offends public policy, and is immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous as the gravity of 

the conduct outweighs any alleged benefits.

98. Defendant’s conduct, described herein, violated the “fraudulent” prong of the 

UCL by making the omissions concerning the legality of the Supplements. 

99. Defendant leveraged its omissions (in failing to inform consumers that the 

Supplements contained an illegal and unsafe ingredient) and deception to induce Plaintiff 

Quidera and the members of the California Subclass to purchase the Supplements, which were of 

different characteristics, value, and/or quality than advertised.

100. Defendant’s unlawful sales and deceptive marketing and labeling caused Plaintiff 

Quidera and the members of the California Subclass to suffer injury in fact and to lose money or 

property, as it denied them the benefit of the bargain. Had Plaintiff Quidera and the members of 

the California Subclass been aware of Defendant’s unlawful marketing, labeling, and/or sales 

tactics, they would not have purchased Defendant’s Supplements. 

101. Plaintiff Quidera also seeks an order enjoining Defendant from continuing to 

conduct business through unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent acts and practices and to 

immediately cease distribution and sale of the Supplements.

102. Plaintiff Quidera also seeks an order for the disgorgement and restitution of all 

monies from the sale of the Supplements unjustly acquired through acts of unlawful, unfair, 

and/or fraudulent competition.

COUNT IV

Violation of New York General Business Law § 349

(On Behalf of the New York Subclass)

103. Plaintiff Cavolo brings this claim individually and on behalf of the New York 

Subclass. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 22 of 82
23

104. By marketing and distributing the Supplements as “dietary supplements” and 

failing to inform consumers that they contained an illegal and unsafe ingredient, Defendant 

engaged in deceptive acts and practices by falsely and misleadingly marketing its Supplements to 

consumers. 

105. The foregoing deceptive acts and practices were directed at consumers.

106. The foregoing deceptive acts and practices are misleading in a material way

because had the omitted information been disclosed, Plaintiffs and New York Subclass Members 

would have been aware of it and not purchased the Supplements. 

107. Plaintiffs and members of the New York Subclass were injured because they

would not have purchased the Supplements had they known that they contained an illegal and 

unsafe ingredient. As a result of Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs and 

members of the New York Subclass have been damaged because they paid a premium to 

purchase the Supplements. Specifically, Plaintiffs and members of the New York Subclass were 

damaged in the full amount of the purchase price of the Supplements because the Supplements 

were worthless due to their illegality and inherent danger.

108. By advertising, marketing, distributing, and/or selling the Supplements to 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the New York Subclass, Defendant engaged in and continues 

to engage in deceptive acts, practices, and omissions. 

109. Plaintiffs and the other members of the New York Subclass further seek to enjoin 

such unlawful deceptive acts and practices as described above. Each of the New York Subclass

members will be irreparably harmed unless Defendant’s unlawful actions are enjoined. 

Specifically, Defendant will continue to falsely and misleadingly sell the Supplements without 

disclosing their true nature, as set forth at length above. Absent injunctive relief, Defendant will 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 23 of 82
24

continue to manufacture and sell its Supplements without disclosing that they are illegal and not 

generally recognized as safe.

110. On behalf of themselves and other members of the New York Subclass,

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and practices described herein, to recover their actual

damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, three times actual damages, and reasonable

attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT V

Fraud

(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)

111. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class 

and California and New York Subclasses against Defendant. 

112. Defendant failed to disclose to Class members the true nature of, illegality of, and 

danger associated with, DMHA. Indeed, Defendant markets the Supplements as “Dietary 

Supplement[s],” which is a uniform representation on the label of each one of the Supplements. 

However, in truth, Defendant knows that DMHA is not a “Dietary Supplement”, but is in fact a 

synthetically-produced “unsafe food additive.” Defendant further knows that even if DMHA 

could be considered a “Dietary Supplement”, which it cannot, the Supplements are still 

adulterated because there is no evidence suggesting that DMHA, a NDI, is safe for use as 

directed by Defendant. 

113. Defendant knew about the dangers associated with DMHA, and intentionally 

failed to comply with the FDCA and supporting regulations in establishing the safety and 

efficacy of DMHA as directed on the label. Defendant intentionally failed to meet these 

obligations because it knows no such evidence exists, and it knows that DMHA is in fact an 

illegal stimulant and an unsafe food additive.

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 24 of 82
25

114. Defendant knew that DMHA carries the same risks and dangers of the previously 

banned ingredient DMAA, but included DMHA in its products nonetheless. 

115. Plaintiffs each purchased the Supplements containing the unlawful ingredient 

DMHA. In purchasing the Supplements, Plaintiffs each reviewed the labels and disclosures, 

including Defendant’s claim that the Supplements were “Dietary Supplement[s].” Plaintiffs 

relied on Defendant’s representations, including that the Supplements were “Dietary 

Supplement[s],” to their detriment. Had they known the truth about the Supplements, they 

would not have purchased or used the products. 

116. The false and misleading omissions were made with knowledge of their 

falsehood. 

117. The false and misleading representations and omissions were made by 

Defendant, upon which Plaintiffs and members of the Class and California and New York 

Subclasses reasonably and justifiably relied and were intended to induce and actually induced 

Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase the Supplements. 

118. The fraudulent actions of Defendant caused damage to Plaintiffs and members of 

the Class, who are entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief as a result. 

COUNT VI

Unjust Enrichment

(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)

119. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class 

and California and New York Subclasses against Defendant. 

120. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful and misleading labeling, marketing, and sale 

of the Supplements, Defendant was enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs.

121. Defendant has knowledge of these benefits.

122. The Supplements contain DMHA, an illegal and unsafe ingredient.

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 25 of 82
26

123. Defendant sold the Supplements to Plaintiffs despite the fact that they were not 

capable of being sold legally and were worthless.

124. It is against equity and good conscience to permit Defendant to retain the illgotten benefits received from Plaintiffs and Class members given that the Supplements were not 

what Defendant purported them to be.

125. It would be unjust and inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit, warranting 

restitutionary disgorgement to Plaintiffs and Class members of all monies paid for the 

Supplements, and/or all monies paid for which Plaintiffs and Class members did not receive 

benefit.

126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs and Class 

members have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request, individually and on behalf of the alleged 

Class and California and New York Subclasses, that the Court enter judgment in their favor and 

against Defendant as follows: 

A. An Order certifying the proposed Class and California and New York Subclasses

and appointing Plaintiffs and their Counsel to represent the Class and California and 

New York Subclasses; 

B. An Order enjoining Defendant from engaging in the wrongful conduct alleged 

herein concerning the unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, harmful, and unfair business 

conduct and practices; 

C. An Order of disgorgement of wrongfully obtained profits; 

D. An award of compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, in an amount to be 

determined; 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 26 of 82
27

E. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees costs and litigation expenses, as allowable 

by law; 

F. Interest on all amounts awarded, as allowed by law; and 

G. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: June 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

By: /s/ Sarah N. Westcot

Sarah N. Westcot

Scott A. Bursor 

Sarah N. Westcot

701 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1420

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 330-5512

Facsimile: (212) 989-9163

Email: scott@bursor.com

swestcot@bursor.com

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

Yitzchak Kopel (pro hac forthcoming)

888 7th Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (646) 837-7126

Facsimile: (212) 989-9163

Email: ykopel@bursor.com

 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 27 of 82
EXHIBIT A

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 28 of 82
6/3/2020 Hi Tech Pharmaceuticals - 560788 - 04/10/2019 | FDA

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/hi-tech-pharmaceuticals-560788-04102019 1/4

WARNING LETTER

Hi Tech Pharmaceuticals

MARCS-CMS 560788 — APRIL 10, 2019

Product:

Dietary Supplements

WARNING LETTER

VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

April 10, 2019

Jared Wheat, CEO & Founder

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

6015 B Unity Drive

Norcross, GA 30071-3575 US

 

Recipient:

Jared Wheat

CEO & Founder

Hi Tech Pharmaceuticals

6015 B Unity Drive

Norcross, GA 30071-3575

United States

Issuing Oce:

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

5001 Campus Drive

College Park, MD 20740-3835

United States

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 29 of 82
6/3/2020 Hi Tech Pharmaceuticals - 560788 - 04/10/2019 | FDA

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/hi-tech-pharmaceuticals-560788-04102019 2/4

Re: 560788

Dear Mr. Wheat:

This letter concerns your products Ultimate Orange, HydroxyElite, Lipodrene Elite, and Synadrene, which are

labeled and/or offered for sale as dietary supplements. The Supplement Facts panel on your product labels

declares 2-Aminoisoheptane HCl as a dietary ingredient. This ingredient is also called, among other names,

1,5-DMHA, 2-amino-6-methylheptane, 2-amino-5methylheptane, 1,5-Dimethylhexylamine, 2-Isooctyl amine,

and Octodrine, and will be referred to hereinafter as DMHA.

The term “dietary supplement” is defined in section 201(ff) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the

Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)]. Given that you have declared DMHA as a dietary ingredient in the labeling of your

product, we assume you have a basis to conclude that DMHA is a “dietary ingredient” under section 201(ff)(1)

of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(1)]. If you have a basis to conclude that DMHA is a “dietary ingredient,” it would

also be a “new dietary ingredient” (i.e., a dietary ingredient not marketed in the United States before October

15, 1994) under section 413(d) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 350b(d)].

Under section 413 of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 350b], a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient

shall be deemed adulterated under section 402(f) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 342(f)] unless it meets one of two

requirements:

1. The dietary supplement contains only dietary ingredients that have been present in the food supply as an

article used for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered; or

2. There is a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the dietary ingredient when used

under the conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement will reasonably be

expected to be safe and, at least 75 days before being introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate

commerce, the manufacturer or distributor of the dietary ingredient or dietary supplement provides FDA with

information, including any citation to published articles, which is the basis on which the manufacturer or

distributor has concluded that a dietary supplement containing such dietary ingredient will reasonably be

expected to be safe.

To the best of FDA’s knowledge, there is no information demonstrating that DMHA was lawfully marketed as a

dietary ingredient in the United States before October 15, 1994, nor is there information demonstrating that

this ingredient has been present in the food supply as an article used for human food in a form in which the

food has not been chemically altered. Assuming DMHA is a dietary ingredient, in the absence of such

information, DMHA would be subject to the notification requirement in section 413(a)(2) of the Act [21 U.S.C.

§ 350b(a)(2)] and 21 CFR 190.6. Products for which the manufacturer or distributor is required to submit a

new dietary ingredient notification under section 413(a)(2) and 21 CFR 190.6, but for which the required

notification has not been submitted, are adulterated under sections 402(f) and 413(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. §§

342(f) and 350b(a)].

Even if a new dietary ingredient notification had been submitted under section 413(a)(2) and 21 CFR 190.6, we

know of no evidence that would establish that DMHA could be lawfully marketed as a new dietary ingredient

in your Ultimate Orange, HydroxyElite, Lipodrene Elite, and Synadrene products. In the absence of a history

of use or other evidence of safety establishing that DMHA, when used under the conditions recommended or

suggested in the labeling as a dietary ingredient, will reasonably be expected to be safe, dietary supplements

containing DMHA as a new dietary ingredient are adulterated under sections 402(f) and 413(a) of the Act

because there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not present

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 30 of 82
6/3/2020 Hi Tech Pharmaceuticals - 560788 - 04/10/2019 | FDA

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/hi-tech-pharmaceuticals-560788-04102019 3/4

a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Introduction of such products into interstate commerce is

prohibited under sections 301(a) and (v) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 331(a) and (v)]. To the best of FDA’s

knowledge, there is no history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that DMHA will reasonably be

expected to be safe when used as a dietary ingredient. 

We also note that we have questions about whether DMHA is, in fact, a dietary ingredient. If DMHA were not a

dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1) of the Act, it would be an unsafe food additive. If a substance is not

generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by qualified experts for its intended use in food and does not qualify for

any of the other exemptions from the food additive definition, it is a food additive.[1] Food additives require

premarket approval based on data demonstrating safety. Any food additive that has not been approved for its

intended use in food is deemed to be unsafe and causes the food to be adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C)

(i) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 342(a)(C)(i)]. Adulterated foods cannot be legally imported or marketed in the

United States.

Section 201(s) of the Act [21 U.S.C § 321(s)] exempts dietary ingredients used in dietary supplements from the

food additive definition. However, non-dietary ingredients intended for use in dietary supplements are not

exempt from the food additive definition and must meet the same requirements as substances added to

conventional foods. In other words, a non-dietary ingredient added to a dietary supplement must be used in

accordance with a food additive regulation or be GRAS for its intended use, unless it qualifies for another

exception to the food additive definition.

DMHA it is not generally recognized as safe under its conditions of use in your dietary supplement products.

 If DMHA is not a dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1) of the Act, dietary supplements containing

DMHA would be adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Act because they would contain an unsafe

food additive.

The violations cited in this letter are not intended to be an all-inclusive statement of violations that exist in

connection with your products. You are responsible for investigating and determining the causes of the

violations identified above and for preventing their recurrence or the occurrence of other violations. It is your

responsibility to ensure that your firm complies with all requirements of federal law, including FDA

regulations.

You should take prompt action to correct the violations addressed in this letter, as well as any other violations

associated with your Ultimate Orange, HydroxyElite, Lipodrene Elite, and Synadrene products or other dietary

supplement products marketed by your firm, including any that contain DMHA. We also remind you that the

new dietary ingredient notification requirement applies to all dietary supplements that contain new dietary

ingredients that have not been present in the food supply as articles used for food in a form in which the food

has not been chemically altered. Failure to immediately cease distribution of your products Ultimate Orange,

HydroxyElite, Lipodrene Elite, and Synadrene, and any other products you market that contain DMHA, could

result in enforcement action by FDA without further notice. Sections 302 and 304 of the Act provide for

seizure of violative products and injunction against the manufacturers and distributors of violative products

[21 U.S.C. §§ 332 and 334].

Within fifteen working days of receipt of this letter, please notify this office in writing of the specific steps that

you have taken to correct these violations. Include an explanation of each step being taken to prevent the

recurrence of violations, as well as copies of related documentation. If you believe that your products are not in

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 31 of 82
6/3/2020 Hi Tech Pharmaceuticals - 560788 - 04/10/2019 | FDA

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/hi-tech-pharmaceuticals-560788-04102019 4/4

violation of the Act, include your reasoning and any supporting information for our consideration. If you

cannot complete corrective action within fifteen working days, state the reason for the delay and the time

within which you will complete the correction.

Your written reply should be directed to Mr. Rob Genzel Jr., Compliance Officer, United States Food and Drug

Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, Office of

Compliance (HFS-608), Division of Enforcement, College Park, Maryland 20740-3835. If you have any

questions, you may also contact Mr. Genzel at rob.genzel@fda.hhs.gov (mailto:rob.genzel@fda.hhs.gov).

Sincerely,

/S/ 

William A. Correll

Director

Office of Compliance

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

[1] Under section 201(s) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(s)], the following types of substances are excluded from the food additive definition:

(1) pesticide chemical residues in or on a raw agricultural commodity or processed food; (2) pesticide chemicals; (3) color additives; (4)

substances used in accordance with a “prior sanction” (i.e., a sanction or approval granted prior to the enactment of the Food Additives

Amendment of 1958 under the Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the Meat Inspection Act); (5) new animal drugs; and

(6) dietary ingredients in or intended for use in a dietary supplement.

 More Warning Letters (/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/compliance-actions-and-activities/warning-letters)

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 32 of 82
EXHIBIT B

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 33 of 82
6/3/2020 Blackstone Labs LLC - 04/24/2015 | FDA

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/blackstone-labs-llc-04242015 1/3

WARNING LETTER

Blackstone Labs LLC

APRIL 24, 2015

Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service

Food and Drug Administration

5100 Paint Branch Parkway

College Park, MD 20740 

WARNING LETTER

VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

APR 24 2015

Aaron Singerman

Blackstone Labs, LLC

9605 Parkview Avenue

Boca Raton, FL 33428

                                                            Re: 447355

Dear Mr. Singerman:

This letter concerns your product Angel Dust, which is labeled and/or offered for sale as a dietary supplement.  The Supplement Facts panel

on your product label declares AMP Citrate (4-amino-2-methylpentane citrate) as a dietary ingredient. This ingredient is also called, among

other names, 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine, DMBA, 2-amino-4-methylpentane, and 4-methyl-2-pentanamine, and will be referred to in the rest of this

letter as DMBA.

The term “dietary supplement” is dened in section 201(ff) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)).  Given

that you have declared DMBA as a dietary ingredient in the labeling of your product, we assume you have a basis to conclude that DMBA is a

“dietary ingredient” under section 201(ff)(1) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(1)).  Assuming that DMBA is a “dietary ingredient,” it would also be a

“new dietary ingredient” for which a notication is required under section 413(a)(2) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)(2)) and 21 CFR 190.6.

Recipient:

Blackstone Labs LLC

United States

Issuing Oce:

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

United States

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 34 of 82
6/3/2020 Blackstone Labs LLC - 04/24/2015 | FDA

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/blackstone-labs-llc-04242015 2/3

Under section 413 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 350b), a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient (i.e., a dietary ingredient not

marketed in the United States before October 15, 1994) shall be deemed adulterated under section 402(f) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 342(f)) unless

it meets one of two requirements:

1. The dietary supplement contains only dietary ingredients that have been present in the food supply as an article used for food in a

form in which the food has not been chemically altered; or

2. There is a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the dietary ingredient when used under the conditions

recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement will reasonably be expected to be safe and, at least 75 days

before being introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, the manufacturer or distributor of the dietary ingredient

or dietary supplement provides FDA with information, including any citation to published articles, which is the basis on which the

manufacturer or distributor has concluded that a dietary supplement containing such dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to

be safe.

To the best of FDA’s knowledge, there is no information demonstrating that DMBA was lawfully marketed as a dietary ingredient in the United

States before October 15, 1994, nor is there information demonstrating that this ingredient has been present in the food supply as an article

used for human food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered.  In the absence of such information, DMBA is subject to the

notication requirement in section 413(a)(2) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)(2)) and 21 CFR 190.6.  Because the required notication has not

been submitted, your product is adulterated under sections 402(f)(1)(B) and 413(a) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 342(f)(1)(B) and 350b(a)).

Even if the required notication had been submitted, we know of no evidence that would establish that your product is not adulterated. In the

absence of a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that DMBA, when used under the conditions recommended or suggested

in the labeling of your product, will reasonably be expected to be safe, Angel Dust is adulterated under sections 402(f)(1)(B) and 413(a) of the

Act (21 U.S.C. 342(f)(1)(B) and 350b(a)) because it contains a new dietary ingredient for which there is inadequate information to provide

reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not present a signicant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.  Introduction of such a

product into interstate commerce is prohibited under sections 301(a) and (v) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (v)). To the best of FDA’s

knowledge, there is no history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that DMBA will reasonably be expected to be safe when used as

a dietary ingredient. 

It has come to our attention that DMBA used in products in the dietary supplement marketplace may be produced synthetically.  Section

201(ff)(1) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(1)) denes “dietary ingredient” as a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb or other botanical, or dietary

substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake, or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or

combination of any dietary ingredient from the preceding categories.  Synthetically produced DMBA is not a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, herb

or other botanical. To the best of FDA’s knowledge, synthetically produced DMBA is not commonly used as human food or drink.  Further,

synthetically produced DMBA is not a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or combination of the preceding categories.  Therefore,

synthetically produced DMBA is not a dietary ingredient as dened in section 201(ff)(1) of the Act.

We request that you take prompt action to correct the violations cited above, as well as any other violations associated with your Angel Dust

product or other dietary supplement products marketed by your rm, including any that contain DMBA.  We also remind you that the new

dietary ingredient notication requirement applies to all dietary supplements that contain new dietary ingredients that have not been present

in the food supply as articles used for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered.  It is your responsibility to ensure that

your rm complies with all requirements of federal law and FDA regulations.

Failure to immediately cease distribution of your product Angel Dust and any other products you market that contain DMBA could result in

enforcement action by FDA without further notice.  Sections 302 and 304 of the Act provide for seizure of violative products and injunction

against the manufacturers and distributors of violative products [21 U.S.C. §§ 332 and 334]. 

We request that you advise us in writing, within 15 days of receipt of this letter, as to the specic steps that have been or will be taken to

correct these violations, including any steps taken with respect to product currently in the marketplace. Your response should also include an

explanation of each step taken to ensure that similar violations do not recur, as well as documentation to support your response. Your written

reply should be directed to Mr. Shawn Goldman, United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,

5100 Paint Branch Parkway, Oce of Compliance (HFS-608), Division of Enforcement, College Park, Maryland 20740-3835. If you have any

questions, please contact Mr. Goldman at shawn.goldman@fda.hhs.gov (mailto:shawn.goldman@fda.hhs.gov).

                                                                       

 Sincerely,

 /s/                                                                      

William A. Correll

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 35 of 82
6/3/2020 Blackstone Labs LLC - 04/24/2015 | FDA

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/blackstone-labs-llc-04242015 3/3

 Director

 Oce of Compliance

 Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

 More Warning Letters (/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/compliance-actions-and-activities/warning-letters)

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 36 of 82
EXHIBIT C

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 37 of 82
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19-80030-CR-DIMITROULEAS/MATTHEWMAN

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 38 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 1 of 39
I 

~ i 

I i 

I 

Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. FDA's primary purpose in enforcing the FDCA 

was to protect the health and safety of consumers in the United States. FDA's responsibilities 

included regulating the manufacturing, labeling, and distribution of food and drugs shipped or 

received in interstate commerce. FDA's responsibilities included preventing improperly packaged 

or labeled food and drugs not approved for sale from reaching consumers. 

2. It was unlawful under the FDCA to distribute in interstate commerce any new drug 

that had not been approved by the FDA. 

3. Purchasers of food and dietary supplements outside the United States often required 

sellers to certify that products were legal in the United States. Any person who exported a food, 

including a dietary supplement, from the United States could request that FDA certify in writing 

that the product meets certain requirements of the FDCA. The certification was known as a 

"Certificate of Free Sale." 

Prohormones, SARMs and Other Compounds 

4. Designer steroids were synthetic steroid compounds derived by simple chemical 

modification from another steroid, usually an anabolic steroid. Some designer steroids were 

referred to as "pro hormones." 

5. Dimethazine, methylstenbolone and methyl-1-etiocholenolol were synthetic 

steroids and were often referred to as "prohormones." They were not dietary ingredients that could 

be used in dietary supplements. 

6. Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs) were chemical substances 

about which there were serious safety concerns, including that they increased the risk of heart 

attack, stroke, and liver damage. 

2 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 39 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 2 of 39
t 

1 

l 

l 

7. Ostarine was a SARM and had been authorized by FDA to be investigated as a new 

drug. Since in or around 2008, clinical research studies of ostarine have been conducted and 

publicized. 

8. "Nootropic" substances were chemical substances marketed to be consumed as 

mind-altering or cognition-enhancing products. 

9. Picamilon, also known as "pikatropin," was a synthetic chemical compound. 

Picamilon has been marketed as a nootropic compound and sold as an antidepressant. Picamilon 

was not a dietary ingredient. 

Corporate Defendants 

10. Defendant BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC (BLACKSTONE) was a limited 

liability company that was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida on or about 

August 29, 2012. BLACKSTONE was located in Palm Beach County, Florida, and engaged in 

the sale and distribution of products that they claimed were dietary supplements. 

11. Defendant VENTECH LABS, LLC (VENTECH) was a limited liability company 

that was established under the laws of the State of Florida on or about June 13, 2016. VENTECH 

was located in Palm Beach County, Florida. VENTECH manufactured and sold products that it 

claimed were dietary supplements to consumers throughout the United States. VENTECH also 

manufactured products for BLACKSTONE. 

Individual Defendants 

12. Defendant PHILLIP BRAUN, a/k/a "PJ," resided in Palm Beach County, Florida. 

BRAUN co-founded BLACKSTONE and was president until May 2016, when he also became 

BLACKSTONE's chief executive officer. BRAUN was an owner of BLACKSTONE. 

3 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 40 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 3 of 39
13. Defendant AARON SINGERMAN resided in Palm Beach County, Florida. 

SINGERMAN co-founded BLACKSTONE and was chief executive officer until May 2016. He 

was an owner of the company until in or around January 2018. 

14. Defendant ROBERT DIMAGGIO resided in Henderson, Nevada. DIMAGGIO 

co-founded BLACKSTONE with PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON SINGERMAN. 

15. Defendant ANTHONY VENTRELLA, a/k/a "Joey," resided in St. Francisville, 

Louisiana, and Palm Beach County, Florida. VENTRELLA was an owner and chief executive 

officer of VENTECH. 

16. Defendant JAMES BOCCUZZI resided in the State of Connecticut and in 

Broward and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. BOCCUZZI was BLACKSTONE's lead salesman 

and managed wholesale sales. 

17. Defendant DAVID WINSAUER resided in Palm Beach County, Florida. 

WINSAUER worked as BLACKSTONE's vice president, and managed the company's 

i 

I Unindicted Co-Conspirators 

marketing, its website, and its direct-to-consumer sales. 

I 

! 

I 

18. Unindicted Co-conspirator 1 was an owner and manager of Fight Pharm, LLC, a 

supplement manufacturing company in Palm Beach County, Florida, and an owner and manager 

of a business in the State of Georgia that manufactured products for BLACKSTONE. 

19. Unindicted Co-conspirator 2 was an owner and manager ofVENTECH and along 

with ANTHONY VENTRELLA controlled the company's important activities. Unindicted CoConspirator 2 also assisted VENTRELLA in running the day-to-day operations of Fight Pharm, 

LLC and VBS Laboratories, LLC, another supplement manufacturing company in Palm Beach 

County, Florida. 

4 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 41 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 4 of 39
20. Unindicted Co-conspirator 3 was the owner and chief executive of a supplement 

retailer in Batesville, Arkansas, who repeatedly purchased products from BLACKSTONE. 

21. Unindicted Co-conspirator 4 worked as BLACKSTONE's manager of inventory 

and shipping, and later as its chief operations officer. 

Defendants' Business Practices 

22. Beginning on or about July 2, 2013, ROBERT DIMAGGIO, an associate of 

PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON SINGERMAN, helped start BLACKSTONE and became a 

manager of the company. As a result of his work with BRAUN and SINGERMAN, DIMAGGIO 

received monthly payments of $6,000 from BLACKSTONE until in or around September 2017. 

23. Until in or around April 2016, PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON SINGERMAN 

jointly owned and controlled BLACKSTONE. In or around April 2016, disputes arose between 

BRAUN and SINGERMAN and led to SINGERMAN's departure from on-site, day-to-day 

operation and control of BLACKSTONE. SINGERMAN remained a part-owner of 

BLACKSTONE and continued to receive a portion of its profits until in or around January 2018. 

After SINGERMAN's departure from on-site participation and control, BRAUN became the 

dominant owner, controlling BLACKSTONE's important activities, including its day-to-day 

operations and finances. 

24. AARON SINGERMAN, PHILLIP BRAUN, and Unindicted Co-conspirator 1 

established Fight Pharm, LLC (Fight Pharm) as a limited liability company under the laws of the 

State of Florida on or about April 16, 2014. Fight Pharm manufactured and sold drugs purportedly 

marketed as dietary supplements to customers throughout the United States. 

5 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 42 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 5 of 39
25. AARON SINGERMAN and PHILLIP BRAUN established Fight Pharm so that 

they could shift the sale of drugs and other products from BLACKSTONE to Fight Pharm and to 

hide such sales from FDA. 

26. AARON SINGERMAN and PHILLIP BRAUN directed ANTHONY 

VENTRELLA to be the nominal owner and chief executive officer of Fight Pharm. 

VENTRELLA and Unindicted Co-conspirator 2 ran the day-to-day operations of the company. 

SINGERMAN and BRAUN had signature authority over Fight Pharm's bank accounts and 

received the company's profits. One of Fight Pharm's largest customers was BLACKSTONE. 

Fight Pharm became largely inactive by 2016 and was dissolved under Florida law on or about 

August 17, 2017. 

27. AARON SINGERMAN, PHILLIP BRAUN, and ANTHONY VENTRELLA 

established VBS Laboratories, LLC (VBS) as a limited liability company under the laws of the 

State of Florida on or around November 6, 2015. VBS, which operated in Palm Beach County, 

Florida, manufactured and sold drugs throughout the United States purportedly marketed as dietary 

supplements. 

28. AARON SINGERMAN and PHILLIP BRAUN established VBS as a successor 

to Fight Pharm operating at the same location as Fight Pharm and acquiring Fight Pharm's 

manufacturing equipment. VBS became active in 2016, after Fight Pharm became inactive. 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA was a co-owner of VBS with SINGERMAN and BRAUN. 

VENTRELLA and Unindicted Co-conspirator 2 ran VBS's day-to-day operations. 

BLACKSTONE was one of VBS's largest customers. SINGERMAN and BRAUN received 

profits from VBS. VBS was dissolved under Florida law on or about August 17, 2017. 

6 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 43 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 6 of 39
29. VENTECH was a successor to VBS, operating at VBS's Palm Beach County 

location and acquiring its manufacturing equipment. 

COUNT 1 

Conspiracy 

(18 u.s.c. § 371) 

1. The General Allegations section of this Indictment is re-alleged and incorporated 

by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

2. From on or about August 28, 2012, through in or around August 2018, in Palm 

Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 

PHILLIP BRAUN, a/k/a "PJ," 

AARON SINGERMAN, 

ROBERT DIMAGGIO, 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA, 

a/k/a "Joey," 

JAMES BOCCUZZI, 

DAVID WINSAUER, 

BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, and 

VENTECH LABS, LLC, 

did willfully, that is, with the intent to further the objects of the conspiracy, and knowingly 

combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and others, known and unknown to the 

Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by impairing, impeding, obstructing, and defeating, 

through deceitful and dishonest means, the lawful functions of the United States Food and Drug 

Administration, an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, in the 

United States Food and Drug Administration's oversight and regulation of food, drugs, and dietary 

supplements, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, and to commit offenses 

against the United States, that is: 

a. to knowingly and with intent to defraud, devise, and intend to devise, a scheme 

and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and 

7 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 44 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 7 of 39
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that the pretenses, representations, 

and promises were false and fraudulent when made, and, for the purpose of executing the scheme 

and artifice, did knowingly cause to be delivered certain mail matter by the United States Postal 

Service and any private and commercial interstate carrier, according to the directions thereon, in 

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341; and 

b. to knowingly and with intent to defraud, devise, and intend to devise, a scheme and 

artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent 

pretenses, representations, and promises, knowing that such pretenses, representations and 

promises were false and fraudulent when made, and, for the purpose of executing the scheme and 

artifice, did knowingly transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communications in 

interstate and foreign commerce, certain writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, in violation 

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. 

Purpose of the Conspiracy 

3. It was a purpose of the conspiracy for the defendants and their co-conspirators to 

unlawfully enrich themselves by, among other things: (1) using materially false and misleading 

statements to distribute products they claimed to be legal dietary supplements, but were in fact 

illegal to distribute and in some cases hazardous to consumers; and (2) distributing these illegal 

products without detection and regulatory oversight by the FDA. 

Manner and Means 

The manner and means by which the defendants and their co-conspirators sought to 

accomplish the objects and purpose of the conspiracy included, among others, the following: 

4. PHILLIP BRAUN, AARON SINGERMAN, and ROBERT DIMAGGIO 

established and incorporated BLACKSTONE. BRAUN and SINGERMAN falsely marketed the 

8 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 45 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 8 of 39
1 

I 

1 

.j 

company's products as cutting-edge dietary supplements, designed to safely promote muscle 

growth and strength, and enhance physical and mental performance. 

5. PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON SINGERMAN used BLACKSTONE to 

advertise illegal products on the internet and through email and social media, falsely telling 

customers that the company's products were legal and were dietary supplements. 

6. ANTHONY VENTRELLA, Unindicted Co-conspirator 1 and Unindicted Coconspirator 2 ordered illegal and unsafe ingredients from China imported into the United States 

with false and fraudulent documentation, hiding the true contents from FDA and other departments 

and agencies of the United States Government. 

7. PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON SINGERMAN caused BLACKSTONE to 

evade FDA's regulatory authority and disregard requirements of the FDCA. Among other things, 

BLACKSTONE disregarded complaints from consumers who reported getting ill or injured from 

BLACKSTONE's products. BLACKSTONE failed to notify the FDA of such complaints, even 

when required by law. 

8. PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON SINGERMAN caused BLACKSTONE's 

advertisements to falsely claim: "All our products are manufactured in an FDA approved, 

registered and inspected facility that maintains GMP [Good Manufacturing Practices] 

certifications and follows all FDA guidelines." Moreover, BLACKSTONE's advertisements 

falsely stated that: "Our pro-anabolic compounds are all third party independently lab tested before 

encapsulation." 

9. To shield themselves and BLACKSTONE from detection and scrutiny by FDA, 

PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON SINGERMAN established Fight Pharm and installed 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA as the company's public face. BRAUN and SINGERMAN 

9 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 46 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 9 of 39
l 

I 

1 

l 

I 

transferred the distribution of vanous products from BLACKSTONE to Fight Pharm. 

Nevertheless, BRAUN and SINGERMAN maintained control of Fight Pharm, reaping its profits. 

10. To further conceal unlawful conduct, PHILLIP BRAUN, AARON 

SINGERMAN, JAMES BOCCUZZI, and DAVID WINSAUER created, and caused the 

creation of, fraudulent documents and records, and lied to customers. 

11. Conspirators distributed hundreds of thousands of bottles of illegal products 

nationwide and outside the United States, including the following products: 

a. designer steroids such as "Super DMZ RX 2.0," which contained 

dimethazine and methylstenbolone, and "Alpha-1 Max," which contained 

methyl-1-etiocholenolol; 

b. SARMs, such as "Ostapure," "Ostapro" and "PCT IV," all of which 

contained ostarine; 

c. stimulants, such as "Angel Dust," which contained 4-amino-2-

methylpentane citrate, also known as "AMP Citrate;" 

d. nootropics, such as "Euphoria RX," which contained picamilon; and 

e. other products that violated the FDCA. 

12. To minimize public disclosures and FDA scrutiny concerning the sale of illegal 

products, PHILLIP BRAUN, AARON SINGERMAN, and ANTHONY VENTRELLA 

confidentially settled lawsuits, falsely promising to stop selling products that violated the FDCA. 

Nevertheless, BRAUN, SINGERMAN, VENTRELLA, BLACKSTONE, and Fight Pharm 

continued distributing illegal products through BLACKSTONE, Fight Pharm, and other entities. 

10 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 47 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 10 of 39
13. PHILLIP BRAUN, AARON SINGERMAN, ANTHONY VENTRELLA and 

their co-conspirators u~ed the proceeds of the conspiracy for their own use, the use of others, and 

to further the conspiracy. 

Overt Acts 

In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to accomplish its objects and purpose, at least one of 

the conspirators committed and caused to be committed, in the Southern District of Florida, and 

elsewhere, at least one of the following overt acts, among others: 

1. On or about August 28, 2012, PHILLIP BRAUN, AARON SINGERMAN, and 

ROBERT DIMAGGIO conferred by telephone and Skype and decided BLACKSTONE would 

register as a limited liability company and sell a product known as Super DMZ RX 2.0. 

2. On or about August 29, 2012, PHILLIP BRAUN, AARON SINGERMAN, and 

ROBERT DIMAGGIO caused BLACKSTONE to be in incorporated under the laws of Florida 

as a limited liability company. 

3. In or around August 2012, BLACKSTONE, PHILLIP BRAUN, ROBERT 

DIMAGGIO, and AARON SINGERMAN marketed and sold prohormones through the website, 

www.superdmz.com. 

4. In or around August 2012, PHILLIP BRAUN, AARON SINGERMAN and 

ROBERT DIMAGGIO used the website www.superdmz.com to sell Super DMZ Rx 2.0, falsely 

claiming that the product was a dietary supplement, and that the product was "100% legal!" 

5. On or about March 13, 2014, ROBERT DIMAGGIO, in an email to AARON 

SINGERMAN about FDA enforcement announcements concerning the designer steroid products 

Methadrol and Super DMZ RX 2.0, told SINGERMAN that"[ o ]nee you get an FDA letter I would 

11 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 48 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 11 of 39
' ! l 

i 

move all of the MDE and SDMZ that is left to a different location (in case they show up), and 

remove them from the website, and sell it to the retailers only [ un ]til its [sic] gone." 

6. On or about April 16, 2014, AARON SINGERMAN, PHILLIP BRAUN, 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA, and Unindicted Co-conspirator 2 caused Fight Pharm to be 

incorporated under the laws of Florida as a limited liability company. 

7. On or about April 18, 2014, AARON SINGERMAN and ANTHONY 

VENTRELLA signed a signature card for a Fight Pharm business checking account ending in 

1697. 

8. On or about August 1, 2014, BLACKSTONE, PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON 

SINGERMAN caused a shipment of Super DMZ RX 2.0 to be sent from Palm Beach County, 

Florida to Unindicted Co-conspirator 3 in Arkansas. 

9. On or around September 17,2014,AARON SINGERMAN provided ANTHONY 

VENTRELLA a draft message to be emailed to a Chinese supplier concerning the purchase of 

raw ingredients for Super DMZ RX 2.0. 

10. On or about September 26, 2014, BLACKSTONE, PHILLIP BRAUN and 

AARON SINGERMAN caused a shipment of Super DMZ RX 2.0 to be sent from Palm Beach 

County, Florida to Unindicted Co-conspirator 3 in Arkansas. 

11. On or about March 19, 2015, a BLACKSTONE employee forwarded to AARON 

SINGERMAN a customer's email seeking help because BLACKSTONE's product Angel Dust 

caused her stomach pain and vomiting that required emergency medical attention. 

12. On or about April 25, 2015, after BLACKSTONE received a Warning Letter from 

FDA stating that its Angel Dust product was illegal, PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON 

12 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 49 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 12 of 39
SINGERMAN directed BLACKSTONE employees to sell all remaining BLACKSTONE Angel 

Dust as soon as possible. 

13. On or about May 19, 2015, BLACKSTONE, through an attorney, wrote to FDA 

concerning the W aming Letter FDA issued regarding Angel Dust and stated BLACKSTONE "has 

made the business decision to immediately cease the distribution and sale of its product, Angel 

Dust." 

14. On or about May 20, 2015, an associate of PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON 

SINGERMAN forwarded them an email from an online marketplace, which advised that the 

BLACKSTONE product named "Ostapure" had been removed from the online marketplace's 

product catalog because the product "has been identified as a prescription drug, a product imitating 

a prescription drug, an unapproved foreign drug or supplement, an unapproved new drug, or a 

controlled substance." 

15. On or about June 11, 2015, in response to a wholesale customer's email which said 

that BLACKSTONE's SARM products, including ostarine, were "pretty fucking illegal," 

JAMES BOCCUZZI, emailed and wrote, "Thanks for the info!" 

16. On or about June 24, 2015, AARON SINGERMAN, in an email to DAVID 

WINSAUER and PHILLIP BRAUN, said, "We didn't want any SARMS advertised in Mags ... 

Our OSTAPURE ad in MD [Muscular Development magazine] may cause some problems now. 

Please never do that again. You had 1/3 page for OSTAPURE in the most recent one and now 

someone who saw it might report us to FDA." 

17. On or about July 1, 2015, ANTHONY VENTRELLA, in a text message, told a 

BLACKSTONE employee that their raw ingredients were ordered from China, and instructed the 

BLACKSTONE employee to falsely state, "somewhere in the US if a client is asking." 

13 

f 

I 

I 

i 

I 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 50 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 13 of 39
18. In or around August 2015, PHILLIP BRAUN and AARON SINGERMAN 

instructed BLACKSTONE's sales employees to sell Super DMZ RX 2.0 through Fight Pharm as 

a product called Methyl DMZ. 

19. On or about August 19, 2015, after receiving an email from the wife of an individual 

who reported serious health effects from Alpha 1 Max, PHILLIP BRAUN directed a 

BLACKSTONE employee in an email, "Don't reply to this scammer." 

20. On or about August 22, 2015, PHILLIP BRAUN emailed AARON 

SINGERMAN and asked, "I guess tell the people who want pros [prohormones] about Fight 

pharm [sic] right Aaron?" 

21. On or about August 31, 2015, PHILLIP BRAUN signed a signature card for a 

Fight Pharm business checking account ending in 1697. 

22. On or about September 4, 2015, PHILLIP BRAUN forwarded an email to 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA, providing information from an individual in China who was offering 

to sell SARM ingredients, including ostarine. 

23. On or about September 23, 2015, in response to an email from a customer asking 

why BLACKSTONE was removing SARMS from the company's web site, JAMES 

BOCCUZZI wrote, "Too much of a risk to sell fda is investigating." 

24. On or about September 24, 2015, in an email to Unindicted Co-conspirator 4, 

AARON SINGERMAN, JAMES BOCCUZZI, DAVID WINSAUER, and other 

BLACKSTONE employees, PHILLIP BRAUN wrote, "I don't even want SARMS in my 

warehouse ... I am more nervous about this then [sic] I was about the Pro_ hormones." 

14 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 51 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 14 of 39
I 

I 

l 

25. On or about September 25, 2015, ANTHONY VENTRELLA emailed a 

pharmaceutical ingredient supplier in China, writing that he was "looking to purchase sarms and 

prohormones." 

26. On or about September 25, 2015, JAMES BOCCUZZI wrote an email to a 

BLACKSTONE customer about SARMs, and stated, "I will have them in a different brand for 

you. I had to get them off the [BLACKSTONE] label." 

27. On or about October 9, 2015, PHILLIP BRAUN answered an email from a 

customer about SARMs, including Ostapure, and said, "Illegal to sell them!" 

28. On or about October 9, 2015, PHILLIP BRAUN sent another email stating, 

"Sarms are under serious federal testing by medical companies. Osterine [sic] for instance is in 

level 2 testing meaning it's considered not safe for human consumption. To sell them as a dietary 

supplement would be illegal and comparable to putting something like heroin in bottles and selling 

it." 

29. On or about October 13, 2015, JAMES BOCCUZZI sent an email to ANTHONY 

VENTRELLA, Unindicted Co-conspirator 2 and AARON SINGERMAN, regarding a recent 

sale of Ostapure. BOCCUZZl's email subject stated, "Payment for 1000 Ostapure to be entered 

through Fight Pharm." 

30. On or about October 27, 2015, AARON SINGERMAN emailed a 

BLACKSTONE salesperson about Fight Pharm, and directed the salesperson to falsely tell 

customers: "Just make SURE to explain that is NOT our company." 

31. On or about October 27, 2015, PHILLIP BRAUN, in an email to AARON 

SINGERMAN about Fight Pharm, wrote, "ITs [sic] very important people do not think we have 

anything to do with this!!" 

15 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 52 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 15 of 39
32. On or about November 6, 2015, PHILLIP BRAUN, AARON SINGERMAN and 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA caused VBS to be incorporated under the laws of Florida. 

33. On or about November 20, 2015, PHILLIP BRAUN texted "yes" to DAVID 

WINSAUER after being asked by WINSAUER whether an illegal dietary supplement product 

could be sold at a retail store that BRAUN and SINGERMAN controlled. 

34. On or about February 25, 2016, ANTHONY VENTRELLA sent a text message 

that notified an employee that an incoming package of powder of a raw ingredient to manufacture 

BLACKSTONE and VENTECH products was falsely labeled. 

35. On or about August 4, 2016, JAMES BOCCUZZI, sent an email to a wholesale 

customer and attached a document entitled "Certificate of Free Sale," which falsely described 

BOCCUZZI as an FDA employee. In the email, BOCCUZZI wrote, "This is the best I can do. I 

dont [sic] even feel comfortable doing this because I am impersonating the FDA and our business 

could get shut down, tons of people will lose their jobs." 

36. On or about January 28, 2017, PHILLIP BRAUN, in an email to a 

BLACKSTONE employee who was considering how to respond to a customer complaint, wrote, 

"I'm not worried about losing the customer. Im [sic] concerned with her making it public." 

37. On or about February 16, 2017, ANTHONY VENTRELLA, after being informed 

that a search warrant was being conducted by FDA at VENTRELLA's business, sent a text 

message to one of his employees that said, "Shit. If you can hide the pros [prohormones] please 

do." 

38. On or about February 16, 2017, during an interview with FDA special agents, 

DAVID WINSAUER falsely claimed that BLACKSTONE had stopped selling Super DMZ in 

December 2014. 

16 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 53 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 16 of 39
39. On or about February 16, 2017, during an interview with FDA special agents, 

JAMES BOCCUZZI falsely claimed that BLACKSTONE had stopped selling the Super DMZ 

almost two years previously. 

40. On or about August 30, 2018, after being notified by a customer that an FDA special 

agent wanted to speak to the customer about BLACKSTONE, PHILLIP BRAUN instructed the 

customer in an email, writing, "Ignore that." 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. 

COUNTS2-3 

Introduction of Unapproved New Drugs into Interstate Commerce 

(21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d), 355(a), and 333(a)(2)) 

1. Paragraphs 1-10 and 12-13 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment 

are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

2. On or about the dates listed below, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District 

of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 

BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, 

PHILIP BRAUN, 

a/k/a "PJ," and 

AARON SINGERMAN, 

with intent to defraud and mislead, did cause to be introduced and delivered for introduction into 

interstate commerce "Super DMZ RX 2.0," a new drug within the meaning of Title 21, United 

States Code, Section 321 (p) that did not have in effect an approval of an application filed pursuant 

to Title 21, United States Code, Section 355(b) and 3550), and was not exempted from such 

approval pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 355(i), as charged in the individual 

counts below: 

17 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 54 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 17 of 39
Count Approximate Date Introduction into Interstate Commerce 

2 08/1/2014 50 bottles of "Super DMZ RX 2.0" shipped 

from the Southern District of Florida to 

Arkansas 

3 09/26/2014 400 bottles of "Super DMZ RX 2.0" 

shipped from the Southern District of 

Florida to Arkansas 

In violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 33 l(d), 333(a)(2), and 355(a), and 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. 

COUNT4 

Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances 

(21 u.s.c. § 846) 

1. Paragraphs 10-13, 15-1 7 and 19-21 of the General Allegations section of this 

Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

2. Steroids are synthetic variations of the male sex hormone testosterone, which is 

produced naturally in the human body. Steroids can produce anabolic and androgenic effects. 

"Anabolic" effects relate to the increase and growth of muscle and bone mass. "Androgenic" 

effects relate to the development of male reproductive organs and characteristics. Anabolic 

steroids can be misused and cause harm to the body. Misuse of anabolic steroids may lead to 

serious, even permanent, health problems, such as kidney failure, liver damage, high blood 

pressure, and increases in blood cholesterol. 

3. From on or about December 18, 2014, through in or around February 2017, in Palm 

Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 

PHILLIP BRAUN, a/k/a "PJ," 

AARON SINGERMAN, 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA, 

a/k/a "Joey," 

JAMES BOCCUZZI, 

18 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 55 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 18 of 39
DAVID WINSAUER, 

BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, and 

VENTECH LABS, LLC, 

did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other, Unindicted 

Co-conspirator 2, Unindicted Co-conspirator 3, Unindicted Co-conspirator 4, and others, known 

and unknown to the Grand Jury, to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to manufacture 

and distribute Schedule III controlled substances, that is, the anabolic steroids trendione, halodrol, 

epistane, methylstenbolone, dimethazine, and methyl-1-etiocholenolol, as defined by Title 21, 

United States Code, Section 802( 41 )(A) and (C)(i)-(iii), in violation of Title 21, United States 

Code, Section 841(a)(l). 

With respect to the defendants, PHILLIP BRAUN, AARON SINGERMAN, 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA, JAMES BOCCUZZI, DAVID WINSAUER, BLACKSTONE 

LABS, LLC, VENTECH LABS, LLC, and Unindicted Co-Conspirator 2, Unindicted CoConspirator 3, and Unindicted Co-Conspirator 4, the controlled substances involved in the 

conspiracy attributable to them as a result of their own conduct, and the conduct of other 

conspirators reasonably foreseeable to them, was a mixture and substance containing a detectable 

amount of trendione, halodrol, epistane, methylstenbolone, dimethazine, or methyl-Ietiocholenolol, Schedule III controlled substances, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, 

Sections 846 and 841 (b )( 1 )(E)(i). 

It is further alleged pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 84l(b)(l)(E)(i) that 

serious bodily injury resulted to C.H. from the use of methyl-1-etiocholenolol. 

All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846 and 841 (b )(1 )(E)(i). 

19 

I Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 56 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 19 of 39
I 

I 

I 

COUNTS 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

(21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l)) 

1. Paragraphs 10, 12-13, and 15-17 of the General Allegations section of this 

Indictment are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

2. On or about June 30, 2015, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of 

Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 

PHILLIP BRAUN, a/k/a "PJ," 

AARON SINGERMAN, 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA, a/k/a "Joey," 

JAMES BOCCUZZI, 

DAVID WINSAUR, and 

BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, 

did knowingly and intentionally distribute a controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United 

States Code, Section 84l(a)(l) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. 

Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(b)(l)(E)(i) and (iii), it is further 

alleged that this violation involved 60,000 capsules of a mixture and substance containing a 

detectable amount of dimethazine and methylstenbolone, which were Schedule III controlled 

substances. 

COUNT6 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

(21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l)) 

1. Paragraphs 10-12 and 15-17 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment 

are re-alleged and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

2. On or about September 1, 2016, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of 

Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 

20 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 57 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 20 of 39
PHILLIP BRAUN, a/k/a "PJ," 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA, a/k/a Joey," 

JAMES BOCCUZZI, 

DAVID WINSAUER, 

BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, and 

VENTECH LABS, LLC, 

did knowingly and intentionally distribute a controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United 

States Code, Section 841(a)(l) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. 

Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(b)(l)(E)(i) and (iii), it is further 

alleged that this violation involved 30,000 capsules of a mixture and substance containing a 

detectable amount of dimethazine and methylstenbolone, which are Schedule III controlled 

substances. 

COUNT7 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

(21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l)) 

1. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

2. On or about September 14, 2016, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District 

of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 

BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, and 

PHILLIP BRAUN, 

did knowingly and intentionally distribute a controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United 

States Code, Section 84l(a)(l) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. 

Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841 (b )(1 )(E)(i) and (iii), it is further 

alleged that this violation involved a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of 

dimethazine, a Schedule III controlled substance. 

21 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 58 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 21 of 39
COUNTS 

Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance 

(21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l)) 

1. Paragraphs 11 and 15 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

2. On or about February 16, 2017, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of 

Florida, and elsewhere, the defendants, 

ANTHONY VENTRELLA, a/k/a "Joey," and 

VENTECH LABS, LLC, 

did knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in 

violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(l) and Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 2. 

Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(b)(l)(E)(i) and (iii), it is further 

alleged that this violation involved a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of 

dimethazine, which is a Schedule III controlled substance. 

COUNTS9-11 

Money Laundering 

(18 u.s.c. § 1957) 

1. Paragraphs 10 and 13 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

2. On or about the dates set forth as to each count below, in Palm Beach County, in 

the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, 

AARON SINGERMAN, 

engaged and attempted to engage in a monetary transaction affecting interstate and foreign 

commerce by, through, and to a financial institution, in criminally derived property of a value 

22 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 59 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 22 of 39
l 

greater than $10,000, such property having been derived from specified unlawful activity and 

knowing that the property involved in the transaction represented the proceeds of some form of 

unlawful activity. 

Count Approximate Date Monetary Transaction 

9 02/16/2015 Transferred and exchanged check number 1371, 

made payable to Excell Auto Group in the 

amount of $218, 117.38, from an account of 

BLACKSTONE at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 

N.A., account ending in 2830, for the purchase 

of a 2013 Rolls Royce 

10 06/19/2015 Transferred and exchanged check number 1737, 

made payable to Nova Title in the amount of 

$190,790, from an account of AARON 

SINGERMAN at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 

N.A., account ending in 9542, for the purchase 

of a house in Palm Beach County 

11 08/26/2015 Transferred and exchanged check number 1 719, 

made payable to Boynton Beach Associates 

XXIV, LLLP in the amount of $259,634, from 

an account of AARON SINGERMAN at J.P. 

Morgan Chase Bank, N .A., account ending in 

9542, for the purchase of a house in Palm 

Beach County 

It is further alleged that the specified unlawful activity is conspiracy to distribute controlled 

substances, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846, and conspiracy to commit 

mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3 71. 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2. 

COUNTS 12-14 

Money Laundering 

(18 u.s.c. § 1957) 

1. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the General Allegations section of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 

23 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 60 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 23 of 39
2. On or about the dates set forth as to each count below, in Palm Beach County, in 

the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, 

PHILLIP BRAUN, a/k/a "PJ," 

engaged and attempted to engage in a monetary transaction affecting interstate and foreign 

commerce by, through, and to a financial institution, in criminally derived property of a value 

greater than $10,000, such property having been derived from specified unlawful activity and 

knowing that the property involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of some form of 

unlawful activity. 

Count Approximate Date Monetary Transaction 

12 03/04/2015 Wire transfer of $43,000 from an account of PHILLIP 

BRAUN at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., account 

ending in 8539, to a Bank of America trust account of 

an attorney in Palm Beach County, account ending in 

8202, for the purchase of a house at 284 NE 7th Street, 

Boca Raton, Florida 

13 05/23/2015 Transferred and exchanged check number 1515, made 

payable to Excell Auto Group Inc. in the amount of 

$111,998.38, from an account of BLACKSTONE at 

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., account ending in 

2830, for the purchase of a 2012 Mercedes 

14 06/17/2015 Wire transfer of $327,410.81 from an account of 

PHILLIP BRAUN at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 

account ending in 8539, to a Bank of America trust 

account of an attorney in Palm Beach County, account 

ending in 8202, to complete the purchase of a house 

located at 284 NE 7th Street, Boca Raton, Florida 

It is further alleged that the specified unlawful activity is conspiracy to distribute controlled 

substances, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846, and conspiracy to commit 

mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2. 

24 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 61 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 24 of 39
FORFEITURE 

(18 U.S.C. §§ 98l(a)(l)(C) and 982(a)(l) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(l)-(2)) 

1. The allegations of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated herein for 

the purpose of alleging forfeiture to the United States of certain property in which PHILLIP 

BRAUN, AARON SINGERMAN, ROBERT DIMAGGIO, ANTHONY VENTRELLA, 

JAMES BOCCUZZI, DAVID WINSAUER, BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, and VENTECH 

LABS, LLC have an interest. 

2. Upon conviction of a conspiracy to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 

1341 or Section 1343, as alleged in this Indictment, any defendant so convicted shall forfeit to 

the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C), any property, 

real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such violation. 

3. Upon conviction of a violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 331, 

Section 333, or Section 355, as alleged in this Indictment, any defendant so convicted shall forfeit 

to the United States any unapproved new drug, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 

334(a)(l). 

4. Upon conviction of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, Title 21, United 

States Code, Section 841, as alleged this Indictment, any defendant so convicted shall forfeit to 

the United States of America, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(a)(l)-(2), 

any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the convicted defendant obtained, 

directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation, and any of the convicted defendant's property 

used or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit or to facilitate the commission of 

such violation. 

25 

I 

I 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 62 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 25 of 39
5. Upon conviction of a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957, as 

alleged in this Indictment, any defendant so convicted shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant 

to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(l), any property, real or personal, involved in such 

offense, or any property traceable to such property. 

6. The property that is subject to forfeiture includes, but is not limited to, the 

following: 

Real Property: 

a) The real property known and numbered as 284 NE 7th Street, Boca Raton, 

Florida, together with all improvements, appurtenances, attachments, and fixtures thereon and 

therein; 

b) The real property known and numbered as 16598 Fleur de Lis Way, Delray 

Beach, Palm Beach County, together with all improvements, appurtenances, attachments, and 

fixtures thereon and therein; 

Bank Accounts: 

Certified funds in the amount of $223,430.40 (US) made payable by JP Morgan 

Chase Bank, N.A. to the United States Marshals Service by cashier's check number 4555916142, 

dated March 6, 2017, which were seized pursuant to a warrant from account number 117352830 

held at JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., in the name of Blackstone Labs, LLC; 

Automobiles: 

One (1) 2012 Mercedes (VIN number WDDRK.7HAXCA008764); 

26 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 63 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 26 of 39
Business equipment: The business equipment located at 1140 Holland Drive, Suite 

12, Boca Raton, Florida, which includes the following: 

a) PER-FIL Micro-C Single Head Automatic Auger Filler; 

b) CVC-EC30 Wrap Labeler; 

c) C60 Hot Stamp Printer/Coder; 

d) Titan Pharmaceutical - Fully Automatic Encapsulation Machine; 

e) Titan Pharmaceutical - V-Mixer model TVM-1000; 

f) ProFiller 3700 capsule-filling system; 

g) ProFiller 3700 capsule-filling system; 

h) Semi-Auto Capsule Filler Model DJS-8; and 

i) Electronic Channel Counter (12-track). 

Forfeiture Money Judgment(s): A sum of money equal in value to the following, 

for which the United States will seek entry as a forfeiture money judgment against a convicted 

defendant as part of that defendant's sentence in this case: 

a) Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from 

proceeds traceable to the conspiracy to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341 or 

Section 1343, as alleged in this Indictment; 

b) Any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds a convicted 

defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 841, as alleged this Indictment, and any of the convicted 

defendant's property used or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit or to facilitate 

the commission of such violation; and 

c) The property, real or personal, that was involved in a violation Title 18, 

27 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 64 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 27 of 39
United States Code, Section 1957, as alleged in this Indictment, or any property traceable to such 

property. 

All pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981, and Title 21, United States 

Code, Section 334(a)(l), as made applicable by Title 28, United States Code, Section 246 l(c), and 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 982, and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. 

ARJAAFAJARDO ORSHAN~ UNITED ST A TES ATTORNEY 

GUSTAV W. EYLER 

ACTING DIRECTOR 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANCH 

ALISTAIR A ER, RIAL ATTORNEY 

U.S. DEPARTM NT OF JUSTICE 

CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANCH 

•• 

DA YID A. N , TRIAL ATTORNEY 

U.S. DEPARTM NT OF JUSTICE 

CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANCH 

A TRUE BILL 

F~ERSON 

28 

-

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 65 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 28 of 39
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA 

v. 

PHILLIP BRAUN, et al., 

Defendant. 

UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY* 

Superseding Case Information: 

Court Division: (Select One) New Defendant(s) 

Number of New Defendants 

Total number of counts 

Yes No 

Miami __ Key West 

FTL _x_ WPB FTP 

I do hereby certify that: 

1. I have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number 

of probable witnesses and the legal complexities of the Indictment/Information attached hereto. 

2. I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of this 

Court in setting their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial 

Act, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 3161. 

3. 

4. 

Interpreter: (Yes or No) 

List language and/or dialect 

This case will take 20 

NO 

days for the parties to try. 

5. Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below: 

(Check only one) (Check only one) 

I 0 to 5 days Petty 

II 6 to 10 days Minor 

III 11 to 20 days x Misdem. 

IV 21to60 dads Felony 

v 61 days an over 

6. Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) 

If yes: 

Judge: 

(Attach copy of dispositive order) 

Has a complaint been filed in this matter? 

If yes: 

Case No. 

(Yes or No) No 

x 

No 

Magistrate Case No. 

Related Miscellaneous numbers: 17-MJ-2116; 17-MJ-6071; 17-MJ-8047; 17-MJ-8048; 17-MJ-6319 

18-MJ-6385; 18-cv-81352-Marra 

Defendant(s) in federal custody as of 

Defendant(s) in state custody as of 

Rule 20 from the District of 

Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No 

7. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office 

prior to October 14, 2003? Yes__ No x_ 

*Penalty Sheet(s) attached REV 5/3/17 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 66 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 29 of 39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENALTY SHEET 

Defendant's Name: PHILLIP BRAUN, a/k/a "PJ" 

Count#: 1 

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Federal Offenses 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 

*Max Penalty: Five (5) years' imprisonment 

Counts #: 2, 3 

Introduction of Unapproved New Drugs Into Interstate Commerce 

Title 21, United States Code, Sections 33 l(d), 355(a), and 333(a)(2) 

*Max Penalty: Three (3) years' imprisonment as to each count 

Count#: 4 

Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 

*Max Penalty: Fifteen (15) years' imprisonment 

Counts #: 5, 6, 7 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(l) 

*Max Penalty: Ten (10) years' imprisonment as to each count 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 

' ' ' 

I 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 67 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 30 of 39
Defendant's Name: 

Counts#: 12, 13, 14 

Money Laundering 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENALTY SHEET 

PHILLIP BRAUN, a/k/a "PJ" 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(a) 

*Max Penalty: Ten (10) years' imprisonment as to each count 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 

I 

1 

I 

I 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 68 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 31 of 39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENALTY SHEET 

Defendant's Name: AARON SINGERMAN 

Count#: 1 

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Federal Offenses 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 

*Max Penalty: Five (5) years' imprisonment 

Counts #: 2, 3 

Introduction of Unapproved New Drugs Into Interstate Commerce 

Title 21, United States Code, Sections 33 l(d), 355(a), and 333(a)(2) 

*Max Penalty: Three (3) years' imprisonment as to each count 

Count#: 4 

Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 

*Max Penalty: Fifteen (15) years' imprisonment 

Counts#: 5 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(l) 

*Max Penalty: Ten (10) years' imprisonment 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 69 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 32 of 39
Defendant's Name: 

Counts#: 9, 10, 11 

Money Laundering 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENALTY SHEET 

AARON SINGERMAN 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(a) 

*Max Penalty: Ten (10) years' imprisonment as to each count 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 

1 

I 

' f 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 70 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 33 of 39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENAL TY SHEET 

Defendant's Name: ANTHONY VENTRELLA, a/k/a "Joey" 

Count#: 1 

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Federal Offenses 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3 71 

*Max Penalty: Five (5) years' imprisonment 

Count#: 4 

Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 

*Max Penalty: Fifteen (15) years' imprisonment 

Counts#: 5, 6 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(l) 

*Max Penalty: Ten (10) years' imprisonment as to each count 

Count#: 8 

Possession With Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substances 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(l) 

*Max Penalty: Ten (10) years' imprisonment 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 

f 

I 

f 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 71 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 34 of 39
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENALTY SHEET 

Defendant's Name: JAMES BOCCUZZI 

Count#: 1 

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Federal Offenses 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 

*Max Penalty: Five (5) years' imprisonment 

Count#: 4 

Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 

*Max Penalty: Fifteen ( 15) years' imprisonment 

Counts#: 5, 6 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 

*Max Penalty: Fifteen (15) years' imprisonment as to each count 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 72 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 35 of 39
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENALTY SHEET 

Defendant's Name: DAVID WINSAUER 

Count#: 1 

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Federal Offenses 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 

*Max Penalty: Five (5) years' imprisonment 

Count#: 4 

Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 

*Max Penalty: Fifteen (15) years' imprisonment 

Count#: 5, 6 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846(a)(l) 

*Max Penalty: Ten (10) years' imprisonment as to each count 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 

f 

i 

f 

j 

\ 

l 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 73 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 36 of 39
Defendant's Name: 

Count#: 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENALTY SHEET 

ROBERT DIMAGGIO 

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Federal Offenses 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 

*Max Penalty: Five (5) years' imprisonment 

Count#: 

*Max Penalty: 

Count#: 

*Max Penalty: 

Count#: 

*Max Penalty: 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 

' 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 74 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 37 of 39
Defendant's Name: 

Count#: 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENALTY SHEET 

BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC 

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Federal Offenses 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 

*Max Penalty: Five (5) years' imprisonment 

Counts #: 2, 3 

Introduction of Unapproved New Drugs Into Interstate Commerce 

Title 21, United States Code, Sections 33l(d), 355(a), and 333(a)(2) 

*Max Penalty: Three (3) years' imprisonment as to each count 

Count#: 4 

Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 

*Max Penalty: Fifteen (15) years' imprisonment 

Counts #: 5, 6, 7 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) 

*Max Penalty: Ten (10) years' imprisonment as to each count 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 75 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 38 of 39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENALTY SHEET 

Defendant's Name: VENTECH LABS, LLC 

Count#: 1 

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Federal Offenses 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 

*Max Penalty: Five (5) years' imprisonment 

Count#: 4 

Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 

*Max Penalty: Fifteen (15) years' imprisonment 

Counts #: 6, 8 

Distribution of a Controlled Substance 

Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(l) 

*Max Penalty: Ten (10) years' imprisonment as to each count 

*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, 

special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. ,,. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 76 of 82 Case 9:19-cr-80030-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/08/2019 Page 39 of 39
EXHIBIT D

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 77 of 82
888 SEVENTH AVENUE

NEW YORK, NY 10019

www.bursor.com

Y ITZCHAK K OPEL

Tel: 646 . 837 . 7 127

Fax: 2 1 2.989 . 9163

ykopel@bursor.com

March 20, 2020

Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested

Blackstone Labs, LLC

1120 Holland Dr. Suite 15

Boca Raton, FL 33847

Athlete's Nutrition

3668 Adobe Rd. Suite F

Twentynine Palms, CA 92277

Re: Demand Letter Pursuant to Cal Civ Code § 1782; violation of the U.C.C. §§ 2-314; Cal 

Health & Saf Code § 110620; Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200, 17500, et seq; Cal Civ 

Code §§ 1750, et seq; Fraud, Breach of Implied Warranty; and all other applicable laws

To Whom It May Concern,

This letter serves as a preliminary notice and demand for corrective action by Blackstone 

Labs, LLC (“Defendant,” “Blackstone” or “You”) arising from violations of consumer protection 

laws on behalf of our client, Edward Quidera, and a class of all similarly situated purchasers of

Your Dust X product, as well as all other products containing the stimulant known as 2-

aminoisoheptane (“DMHA1”). This letter also serves as notice pursuant to U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(a) 

concerning the breaches of implied warranties described herein, and notice regarding Your 

violations of all applicable consumer protection laws, including, but not limited to, California

Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 & 17500, et seq, and California Civil Code §§ 1750, et 

seq.

You have participated in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of Dust X and Arson Fat 

Burner, containing the ingredient DMHA (collectively, “Supplements”). The above-referenced 

Supplements have been marketed and sold as part of fat-burning supplements or pre-workout 

formulations. However, the FDA has explained that use of DMHA in supplements is illegal.2

Published academic literature has confirmed the findings of the FDA, namely concluding 

that the “uncontrolled use of [DMHA], its physiological and psychoactive effects raise serious

health implications with possible impact on athletes and doping practices.”3 DMHA has been 

associated with side effects such as “mood swings, tremor, concentration deficiency, over1 DMHA is known by various names, including Octodrine. The term DMHA as used herein is 

designed to refer to DMHA collectively under its various names. 

2 https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplement-products-ingredients/dmha-dietary-supplements

3 Catalani, Valeria et al. “Octodrine: New Questions and Challenges in Sport 

Supplements.” Brain sciences vol. 8,2 34. 20 Feb. 2018, doi:10.3390/brainsci8020034

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 78 of 82
 PAGE 2

stimulation, energy crashes, anxiety, high blood pressure, dyspnoea, rapid heartbeat and 

heartburn.”4 

DMHA has also been banned by most major associations in the United States and abroad, 

including the NCAA, United States/World Anti-Doping Agency, and the Department of Defense. 

Additionally, the state of California adopts new federal food regulations 30 days after any

federal regulation takes effect pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 110115. Finally,

according to California Health & Safety Code § 110620, it is unlawful to sell any adulterated 

food, which is defined by California Health & Safety Code § 110545 as any food that "bears or 

contains any poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to [the] health of 

man.” Taken together these statutes mean that it unlawful to sell goods that are banned by FDA 

regulations in the state of California. 

Mr. Quidera purchased Dust X containing the unlawful ingredient DMHA. Had he

known the truth about Dust X, he would not have purchased or used the product

By selling adulterated and illegal supplements to our client and others similarly situated, 

You breached implied warranties made to consumers. See U.C.C. § 2-313. You failed to inform 

consumers of the true nature of, and danger associated with, DMHA.

Defendant’s conduct is also a deceptive business practice under all applicable consumer 

protection laws, including, but not limited to, California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200

& 17500, et seq., and California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.

Our client is acting on behalf of a class defined as all persons in the United States who 

purchased and used the Supplements and a subclass of all persons in California who purchased 

and used the Supplements. 

To cure these defects, we demand that you (1) cease and desist from further sales of the 

illegal Supplements; (2) issue an immediate recall of the Supplements; and (3) make full 

restitution to all purchasers of the Supplements. 

We further demand that you preserve all documents and other evidence which refer or

relate to any of the above-described practices including, but not limited to, the following:

1. All documents concerning the design, development, supply, production, 

extraction, and/or testing of the Supplements;

2. All documents concerning the advertisement, marketing, or sale of the 

Supplements;

3. All documents concerning communications with any retailer involved in the 

marketing or sale of the Supplements;

4 Id. 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 79 of 82
 PAGE 3

4. All documents concerning communications with purchasers of the Supplements;

5. All adverse event reports or consumer complaints regarding the Supplements;

6. All documents concerning communications with federal or state regulators; and

7. All documents concerning the total revenue derived from sales of the 

Supplements in the United States.

If you contend that any statement in this letter is inaccurate in any respect, please provide 

us with your contentions and supporting documents promptly.

This letter also serves as a thirty (30) day notice and demand under California Civil Code 

§ 1782 for damages. Accordingly, should you fail to rectify the situation on a class-wide basis 

within 30 days of receipt of this letter, we will seek actual damages, plus punitive damages, 

interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

We are willing to negotiate to attempt to resolve the demands asserted in this letter. If 

you wish to enter into such discussions, please contact me right away. If I do not hear from you 

promptly, I will take that as an indication that you are not interested in doing so.

Very truly yours,

 Yitzchak Kopel 

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 80 of 82
EXHIBIT E

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 81 of 82
CLRA Venue Declaration Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1780(d)

I, Sarah N. Westcot, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of Florida and a member 

of the bar of this Court. I am a Partner at Bursor & Fisher, P.A., counsel of record for Plaintiffs

in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as 

a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto under oath.

2. The Complaint filed in this action is filed in the proper place for trial under Civil 

Code Section 1780(d) because Defendant’s principal place of business in this District. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida and the 

United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at 

Miami, Florida this 3rd day of June 2020.

 /s/ Sarah N. Westcot _ 

 Sarah N. Westcot

Case 9:20-cv-80898-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 82 of 82