EXHIBIT A 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:141
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN 

& BALINT, P.C. 

ELAINE A. RYAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

PATRICIA N. SYVERSON (203111) 

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Telephone: 602-274-1100 

Facsimile: 602-274-1199 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN 

& BALINT, P.C. 

TODD D. CARPENTER (234464) 

600 West Broadway, Suite 900 

San Diego, California 92101 

Telephone: (619) 756-6978 

Facsimile: (602) 798-5860 

tcarpenter@bffb.com 

[Additional Counsel Located on Signature Page] 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS LERMA, an Individual, and NICK 

PEARSON, an Individual, On Behalf of 

Themselves and All Others Similarly 

Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

SCHIFF NUTRITION 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Utah 

Corporation and SCHIFF NUTRITION 

GROUP, INC., a Utah Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 11-CV-1056-JAH(MDD) 

CLASS ACTION

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT FOR: 

1. VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMERS 

LEGAL REMEDIES ACT, Civil Code 

§1750 et seq.; 

2. VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR 

COMPETITION LAW, Business and 

Professions Code §17200 et seq.; 

3. VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS 

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT, 502/1, et 

seq.; 

4. PERSONAL INJURIES/MEDICAL 

MONITORING; 

5. PERSONAL 

INJURIES/NEGLIGENCE; and 

6. BREACH OF EXPRESS 

WARRANTY. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:142 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiffs Luis Lerma and Nick Pearson (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, 

bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendant 

Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. and Defendant Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc. (collectively 

“Defendants”), and allege as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Forty-six million Americans suffer from arthritis. Osteoarthritis, also called 

degenerative joint tissue disease, is the most prevalent and disabling form of arthritis. 

Osteoarthritis is caused by the breakdown of cartilage, which is the connective tissue that 

cushions the ends of bones within the joint. Osteoarthritis is characterized by pain, joint 

damage, and limited motion (hereafter referred to as the “three major symptoms of arthritis”). 

The disease generally occurs late in life, and most commonly affects the hands and large 

weight bearing joints, such as the knees, hips and back. There is no cure for the three major 

symptoms of arthritis. Yet, Defendants promises a cure for each of the three major symptoms 

of arthritis in the form of a pill which they manufacture, market, and sell as the Move Free® 

Advanced line of joint health dietary supplements.1 

2. It has been the accepted standard for over four decades in both the medical 

and scientific community that in order for someone to make a health benefit claim about a 

product, the party making that claim must possess competent scientific evidence―meaning 

that they have at least two adequate and well controlled clinical trials supporting a particular 

health benefit claim about a particular product (hereafter referred to as “competent scientific 

evidence”). 

3. On each and every Move Free® Advanced product label and/or package, 

Defendants prominently state that Move Free® Advanced, with its “clinically tested” premium 

formula, will rebuild joint cartilage, improve joint function and reduce joint pain in less than 7 

                                                           

1

 The Move Free® Advanced line includes: (1) Move Free® Triple Strength; Move Free® Plus MSM & Vitamin 

D; and Move Free® Advanced plus MSM (collectively, “Move Free® Advanced” or “the Products”). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:143 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

days. 

4. In making these affirmative representations, Defendants represent to each 

purchaser of Move Free® Advanced that they have competent scientific evidence that these 

products are effective in relieving and reducing the three major symptoms of arthritis and 

other joint related ailments. 

5. Yet, Defendants do not possess such competent scientific evidence. In fact, 

the Move Free® Advanced products are not effective arthritis remedies. In short, Defendants 

have not obtained the necessary scientific proof with regard to each of the Move Free®

Advanced products they market and sell in order to make the representations that they have 

made about each of these Products. 

6. As a result, Defendants are guilty of deceptive conduct in their marketing and 

sale of the Move Free® Advanced products. 

7. Defendants are also guilty of deception by omission in that, after affirmatively 

asserting that these Products are effective remedies against the three major symptoms of 

arthritis, Defendants had a duty to tell Plaintiffs and the Class members that they did not have 

competent scientific evidence to support the efficacy representations that they make about the 

Move Free® Advanced products. 

8. By making representations on the box of each Move Free® Advanced product 

that it was an arthritis remedy, Defendants represented (and continue to represent) to Plaintiffs 

and the Class members that they have competent scientific evidence to back up these 

assertions when they did not possess such evidence. These were material misrepresentations 

concerning the only reason that Plaintiffs and the Class members would have purchased 

Defendants’ Move Free® Advanced products―that the Products were proven by competent 

scientific evidence to be effective against the three major symptoms of arthritis. 

9. Other than to use the Move Free® Advanced products to relieve these 

symptoms of arthritis, there is no reason for Plaintiffs or the Class members to have purchased 

these Products. Plaintiffs and the Class members would not have purchased a Move Free®

Advanced product without believing that it was a proven effective arthritis remedy and that it 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:144 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 3 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

provided relief from the three major symptoms of arthritis. 

10. Thus, through the act of purchasing one of Defendants’ Move Free®

Advanced products, Plaintiffs and each Class member necessarily were deceived by 

Defendants’ representations that these Products were effective arthritis remedies and would 

provide relief from the three major symptoms of arthritis. 

11. Plaintiffs and the Class members were also deceived by Defendants in that, 

after affirmatively asserting that these Products would provide relief for the three major 

symptoms of arthritis, Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs and the Class members that they 

did not possess competent scientific evidence to support these health benefit claims. 

12. Every purchase of the Move Free® Advanced products was tainted with 

Defendants’ deceptions in that just by looking at the package on the shelf or following the 

directions for use, Plaintiffs and the Class members would have seen Defendants’ deceptive 

representations. 

13. Defendants’ deceptive marketing and advertising, as well as the complete lack 

of any disclosure that no competent scientific evidence exists to substantiate the claim that 

Move Free® Advanced will “protect” “replenish” “rebuild[] or “lubricate” joints – let alone 

reduce joint pain “in less than 7 days”―is designed to cause consumers to buy Move Free® 

Advanced. Defendants’ deceptive marketing and advertising campaign has succeeded. 

According to Defendants, in 2010 sales of Move Free® Advanced exceeded $100 million.2 

14. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated 

consumers who have purchased the Products to halt the dissemination of this false and 

misleading advertising message, correct the false and misleading perception it has created in 

the minds of consumers, and obtain redress for those who have purchased Move Free®

Advanced. Based on violations of state unfair competition laws (described below) and breach 

of express warranties, Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief for consumers who 

purchased the Move Free® Advanced products. 

                                                           

2

 Sales figures are based on Fiscal Year 2010. See http://www.schiffnutrition.com/movefree.asp (last visited 

May 2, 2010). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:145 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 4 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2). The 

matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of 

$5,000,000 and is a class action in which members of the class are citizens of a state different 

from Defendants. 

16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants are 

authorized to do and conduct business in California. Defendants have marketed, promoted, 

distributed, and sold the Move Free® Advanced products in California, and Defendants have 

sufficient minimum contacts with this State and/or sufficiently avail themselves of the 

markets in this State through their promotion, sales, and marketing within this State to render 

the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible. 

17. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(a) and (b) 

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred 

while Plaintiff Lerma resided in this judicial district. Venue is also proper under 18 U.S.C. 

§1965(a) because Defendants transact substantial business in this District. 

PARTIES

18. Plaintiff Luis Lerma resides in Imperial, California. During the Class Period, 

Plaintiff Lerma was exposed to and saw Defendants’ claims by reading the Move Free® 

Advanced label, purchased the Move Free® Advanced products in reliance on those claims, 

and suffered injury in fact and lost money. Had Plaintiff Lerma known the truth about 

Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff would not have purchased and used 

the Move Free® Advanced products. 

19. Plaintiff Nick Pearson resides in Cook County Illinois. On or about May 2011 

Plaintiff Pearson was exposed to and saw Defendants’ claims by reading the Move Free® 

Advanced Triple Strength label described herein. Plaintiff Pearson purchased this Move 

Free® Advanced at a Target Store in Streamwood, Illinois and was deceived in some manner 

by Defendants’ claims. The Move Free® Advanced product Plaintiff Pearson purchased was 

not proven to and thus did not provide the health benefits Defendants represented it would, 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:146 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 5 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

including “strengthening, protecting and rebuilding joints” and “COMFORTING SORE 

JOINTS IN LESS THAN 7 DAYS.” As a result, Plaintiff Pearson suffered injury in fact and 

lost money. Had Plaintiff Pearson known the truth about Defendants’ misrepresentations and 

omissions, including the fact that Defendants did not possess competent scientific evidence to 

support the claims that they made about these Products, Plaintiff Pearson would not have 

purchased and used the Move Free® Advanced product. 

20. Defendant Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Utah. Defendant’s headquarters is at 2002 South 5070 

West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104. Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets and sells 

the Move Free® Advanced products to tens of thousands of consumers in California. 

21. Defendant Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Utah. Defendant’s headquarters is at 2002 South 5070 

West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104. Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets and sells 

the Move Free® Advanced products to tens of thousands of consumers in California. 

22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thus allege, that at all times herein 

mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, employee, representative, partner, joint 

venturer, and/or alter ego of the other Defendant and, in doing the things alleged herein, was 

acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, representation, on behalf of 

such partnership or joint venture, and/or as such alter ego, with the authority, permission, 

consent, and/or ratification of the other Defendant. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Move Free® Advanced Products

23. Defendants develop, manufacture, market, distribute and sell vitamins, 

nutritional supplements and sports nutrition products nationwide. Defendants’ “flagship 

brand” is Move Free® Advanced. Move Free® Advanced is available in three different 

formulas: (1) Move Free® Advanced Triple Strength; (2) Move Free® Advanced Plus MSM 

& Vitamin D; and (3) Move Free® Advanced plus MSM. Defendants began manufacturing, 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:147 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 6 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

marketing and selling the Move Free® Advanced products nationwide in 1996.3 

24. The Move Free® Advanced products are sold in virtually every major food, 

drug, and mass retail outlet in California, including, but not limited to: BJ’s Wholesale Club, 

Costco, Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart stores. The Move Free® Advanced products are also sold 

through online retailers such as Costco.com, cvs.com, and walgreens.com. A 120-count 

bottle of Move Free® Advanced retails for approximately $30.00. The following are screen 

shots of the Products: 

 

25. Since the Products’ launch, Defendants have consistently conveyed the 

message to consumers throughout California that Move Free® Advanced, with its “clinically 

tested” formula will “protect,” “replenish” and “rebuild” one’s joints simply by taking the 

recommended number of tablets each day. According to Defendants, Move Free® Advanced 

will also “START[] COMFORTING SORE JOINTS IN LESS THAN 7 DAYS.” These 

claims are not substantiated by competent scientific evidence and are factually baseless. 

26. The primary active ingredients in all the Move Free® Advanced products are 

glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate. Glucosamine is an amino sugar that the 

body produces and distributes in cartilage and other connective tissue. The Products’ 

labeling and packaging states the benefits associated with taking glucosamine hydrochloride: 

“Glucosamine―Helps by strengthening, protecting and rebuilding joints.” There is no 

competent scientific evidence that taking glucosamine―let alone through oral administration 

―results in the body metabolizing it into something that strengthens, protects or rebuilds 

                                                           

3

 In 2000, Defendants rebranded their joint dietary supplements as “Move Free”. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:148 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 7 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

joints. 

27. Chondroitin sulfate is a complex carbohydrate found in the body’s connective 

tissues. On the Products’ labeling and packaging, Defendants claim that chondroitin “assists 

in lubricating and cushioning joints.” There is no competent scientific evidence that taking 

chondroitin sulfate―let alone through oral administration―results in the body metabolizing 

it into something that assists in lubricating and cushioning joints. 

28. All of the Move Free® Advanced products also contain lesser amounts of other 

ingredients including Defendants’ “patent-pending” ingredient Uniflex and hyaluronic acid. 

On their packaging and labeling, Defendants define Uniflex as “a ground breaking dual 

bioflavonoid antioxidant system that protects joints from harmful antioxidants that accelerate 

the breakdown of cartilage and joint tissue.” There is no competent scientific evidence that 

taking Uniflex or any of its individual ingredients―let alone through oral 

administration―results in the body metabolizing it into something that protects joints or 

slows the breakdown of cartilage or joint tissue. 

29. Hyaluronic acid is a component of synovial fluid found in the eyes and joints. 

On the Products’ labeling and packaging, Defendants claim that hyaluronic acid “helps 

lubricate, rejuvenate, re-hydrate, and repair joints.” There is no competent scientific 

evidence that taking hyaluronic acid―let alone through oral administration―results in the 

body metabolizing it into something that helps lubricate, rejuvenate, re-hydrate or repair 

joints. 

30. In addition to those ingredients, Move Free® Advanced plus MSM and Move 

Free® Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D also contain methylsulfonylmethane (“MSM”), an 

organic sulfur compound found in fruits, corn, tomatoes, tea, coffee, and milk. There is no 

competent scientific evidence that taking MSM―let alone through oral 

administration―results in the body metabolizing it into something that relieves any of the 

three major symptoms of arthritis or any other joint related ailments. 

31. Contrary to the stated representations on all the Products’ labeling and 

packaging, Defendants do not possess (and have not possessed) competent scientific evidence 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:149 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 8 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

that any of these ingredients, taken alone or in combination, are effective in treating any of 

the three major symptoms of arthritis or any other joint related ailments. 

32. Despite inadequate testing and no scientifically valid confirmation that Move

Free® Advanced is an effective joint treatment—let alone an effective treatment for all joints 

in the human body, for customers of all ages and for all stages of joint disease—Defendants 

state on the Products’ packaging and labeling that Move Free® Advanced, with its “clinically 

tested” formula will, inter alia, “strengthen[], protect[] and rebuild[] joints” and “START[] 

COMFORTING SORE JOINTS IN LESS THAN 7 DAYS.” Front and back shots of a 

representative Move Free® Advanced Triple Strength product label appear as follows: 

(FRONT) 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:150 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 9 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

9 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(BACK) 

The Impact of Defendants Wrongful Conduct 

33. Despite the lack of competent scientific evidence, Defendants continue to 

unequivocally claim that with its “clinically tested” premium formula, Move Free® Advanced 

provides joint health benefits to all persons. 

34. As the manufacturer and distributor of Move Free® Advanced, Defendants 

possess specialized knowledge regarding the content and effects of the ingredients contained 

in their Products and are in a superior position to learn of the effects—and have learned of 

the effects—their Products have on consumers. 

35. Specifically, Defendants knew or should have known, but failed to disclose 

that they have no competent scientific evidence that their Move Free® Advanced products are 

effective in treating the three major symptoms of arthritis or any other joint related ailments. 

36. Notwithstanding these deceptive representations and material omissions, 

Defendants conveyed and continue to convey one uniform message: Move Free® Advanced, 

with its “clinically tested” formula, is effective in treating the three major symptoms of 

arthritis. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:151 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 10 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

37. Plaintiffs and Class members have been and will continue to be deceived or 

misled by Defendants’ deceptive representations touting the effectiveness of the Move Free® 

Advanced products. Plaintiffs purchased and used the Move Free® Advanced products 

during the Class period and in doing so, read, considered and based their decisions to buy the 

Products on the above cited representations. Because the Products’ sole purpose is to 

provide joint relief for the three major symptoms of arthritis or other joint related ailments, 

Defendants’ representations and omissions were a material factor in influencing Plaintiffs’ 

decision to purchase and use the Move Free® Advanced products. There is no other reason 

for Plaintiffs to have purchased the Move Free® Advanced products and Plaintiffs would not 

have purchased the Products had they known that Defendants did not possess competent 

scientific evidence to support the claims that they made about these Products. 

38. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class members have been damaged in their 

purchases of these Products and have been deceived into purchasing Products that they 

believed, based on Defendants’ representations, were proven to be effective in treating the 

three major symptoms of arthritis and other joint related ailments when, in fact, they are not. 

39. Defendants, by contrast, reaped enormous profits from their false marketing 

and sale of these Products, generating more than $100 million in sales revenue in 2010 alone.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

40. Plaintiff Lerma brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly 

situated California residents pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and seeks certification of the following Class: 

California Class Action 

All California residents who, within the applicable statute of 

limitations, purchased Move Free® Advanced products. 

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents, 

subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and those who 

purchased the Move Free® Advanced products for the purpose of 

resale. 

41. Plaintiff Pearson brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly 

situated consumers pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:152 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 11 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Procedure and seeks certification of the following Class against Defendants for violations of 

Illinois laws and similar laws in other states: 

Multi-State Class Action

All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations under 

their respective state’s consumer fraud act, purchased the Move 

Free® Advanced products.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents, 

subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and those who 

purchased the Move Free® Advanced products for the purpose of 

resale. 

42. In the alternative, Plaintiff Pearson brings this action on behalf of himself and 

all other similarly situated Illinois residents pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks certification of the following Class: 

Illinois Class Action

All Illinois residents who, within the applicable statute of 

limitations, purchased the Move Free® Advanced products. 

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents, 

subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, and those who 

purchased the Move Free® Advanced products for the purpose of 

resale. 

43. Members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that 

joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on 

that basis allege, that the proposed Class contains many thousands of members. The precise 

number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs. 

44. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and 

predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members. The common legal 

and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 

 Whether Defendants had competent scientific evidence to support each 

of the claims that they made about their Products; 

 Whether the claims discussed herein that Defendants made about their 

Products were or are misleading, or reasonably likely to deceive; 

 Whether Defendants’ alleged conduct violates public policy; 

 Whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of the laws asserted 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:153 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 12 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

herein; 

 Whether Defendants engaged in false and misleading advertising; 

 Whether Plaintiffs and Class members have sustained monetary loss 

and the proper measure of that loss; 

 Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to restitution, 

disgorgement of Defendants’ profits, declaratory and/or injunctive relief; and 

 Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to an award of 

punitive and/or compensatory damages. 

45. The claims asserted by Plaintiffs in this action are typical of the claims of the 

members of the Class, as the claims arise from the same course of conduct by Defendants, 

and the relief sought is common. Plaintiffs and Class members suffered uniform damages 

caused by their purchase of the Move Free® Advanced products manufactured, marketed, and 

sold by Defendants. 

46. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 

members of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in both 

consumer protection and class litigation, and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action 

vigorously. Plaintiffs have no adverse or antagonistic interests to those of the Class. 

47. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. The expense and burden of individual litigation would 

make it impracticable or impossible for proposed Class members to prosecute their claims 

individually. It would thus be virtually impossible for the Class, on an individual basis, to 

obtain effective redress for the wrongs done to them. Furthermore, even if Class members 

could afford such individualized litigation, the court system could not. Individualized 

litigation would create the danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the 

same set of facts. Individualized litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all 

parties and the court system from the issues raised by this action. By contrast, the class 

action device provides the benefits of adjudication of these issues in a single proceeding, 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:154 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 13 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court, and presents no 

unusual management difficulties under the circumstances here. 

48. In the alternative, the Class also may be certified because Defendants have 

acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class thereby making 

appropriate final declaratory and/or injunctive relief with respect to the members of the Class 

as a whole. 

49. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive and equitable relief on 

behalf of the entire Class, on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, to enjoin and 

prevent Defendants from engaging in the acts described, and requiring Defendants to provide 

full restitution to Plaintiffs and Class members. 

50. Unless a Class is certified, Defendants will retain monies received as a result 

of their conduct that were taken from Plaintiffs and Class members. Unless a Class-wide 

injunction is issued, Defendants will continue to commit the violations alleged, and the 

members of the Class and the general public will continue to be misled. 

COUNT I

Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act – Civil Code §1750 et seq. 

(Applicable to a California-Only Class) 

51. Plaintiff Lerma re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 

52. This cause of action is brought under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, 

California Civil Code §1750, et seq. (the “Act”). Plaintiff Lerma is a consumer as defined by 

California Civil Code §1761(d). Defendants’ Move Free® Advanced products are goods 

within the meaning of the Act. 

53. Defendants violated and continue to violate the Act by engaging in the 

following practices proscribed by California Civil Code §1770(a) in transactions with 

Plaintiff Lerma and the Class which were intended to result in, and did result in, the sale of 

Defendants’ Move Free® Advanced products: 

(5) Representing that [the Move Free® Advanced products have] . . . 

characteristics, . . . uses [or] benefits . . . which [they] do not have. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:155 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 14 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

14 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

* * * 

(7) Representing that [the Move Free® Advanced products are] of a particular 

standard, quality or grade, . . . if [they are] of another. 

* * * 

(9) Advertising goods . . . with the intent not to sell them as advertised. 

* * * 

(16) Representing that [the Move Free® Advanced products have] been supplied in 

accordance with a previous representation when [they have] not. 

54. Defendants violated and continue to violate the Act by representing and 

failing to disclose material facts on their Move Free product labels and packages as described 

above, when they knew, or should have known, that the representations were 

unsubstantiated, false and misleading and that the omissions were of material facts. 

55. Pursuant to §1782(d) of the Act, Plaintiff Lerma and the Class seek a court 

order enjoining the above-described wrongful acts and practices of Defendants and for 

restitution and disgorgement. 

56. Pursuant to §1782 of the Act, by letter dated May 13, 2011, Plaintiff Lerma 

notified Defendant Schiff Nutrition International and Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., in writing 

by certified mail of the particular violations of §1770 of the Act and demanded that 

Defendants rectify the problems associated with the actions detailed above and give notice to 

all affected consumers of Defendants’ intent to so act. 

57. Defendants have failed to rectify or agree to rectify the problems associated 

with the actions detailed above and give notice to all affected consumers within 30 days of 

the date of written notice pursuant to §1782 of the Act. Therefore, Plaintiff Lerma further 

seeks for actual, punitive and statutory damages, as appropriate. 

58. Defendants’ conduct is malicious, fraudulent and wanton. 

COUNT II

Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq. 

(Applicable to a California-Only Class) 

59. Plaintiff Lerma re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:156 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 15 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

15 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 

60. As alleged herein, Plaintiff Lerma has suffered injury in fact and lost money 

or property as a result of Defendants’ conduct because he purchased the Move Free® 

Advanced products. 

61. In the course of conducting business, Defendants committed unlawful 

business practices by, inter alia, making the representations (which also constitute 

advertising within the meaning of §17200) and omissions of material facts, as set forth more 

fully herein, and violating Civil Code §§1572, 1573, 1709, 1711, 1770, Business & 

Professions Code §§17200, et seq., 17500, et seq., and the common law. 

62. Plaintiff Lerma and the Class reserve the right to allege other violations of 

law, which constitute other unlawful business acts or practices. Such conduct is ongoing and 

continues to this date. 

63. Defendants’ acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices and nondisclosures as alleged herein also constitute “unfair” business acts and practices within the 

meaning of Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq., in that their conduct is 

substantially injurious to consumers, offends public policy, and is immoral, unethical, 

oppressive, and unscrupulous as the gravity of the conduct outweighs any alleged benefits 

attributable to such conduct. 

64. As stated in this complaint, Plaintiff Lerma alleges violations of consumer 

protection, unfair competition and truth in advertising laws resulting in harm to consumers. 

Plaintiff Lerma asserts violations of the public policy of engaging in false and misleading 

advertising, unfair competition and deceptive conduct towards consumers. This conduct 

constitutes violations of the unfair prong of Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq. 

65. There were reasonably available alternatives to further Defendants’ legitimate 

business interests, other than the conduct described herein. 

66. Defendants’ claims, nondisclosures and misleading statements, as more fully 

set forth above, are also false, misleading and/or likely to deceive the consuming public 

within the meaning of Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:157 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 16 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

16 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

67. Defendants’ labeling and packaging as described herein, also constitute 

unfair, deceptive, untrue and misleading advertising. 

68. Defendants’ conduct caused and continues to cause substantial injury to 

Plaintiff Lerma and the other Class members. Plaintiff Lerma has suffered injury in fact and 

has lost money as a result of Defendants’ unfair conduct. 

69. Plaintiff Lerma, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly situated 

California residents, seeks restitution of all money obtained from Plaintiff Pearson and the 

members of the Class collected as a result of unfair competition, an injunction prohibiting 

Defendants from continuing such practices, corrective advertising and all other relief this 

Court deems appropriate, consistent with Business & Professions Code §17203. 

COUNT III

Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act 

(Applicable to a Multi-State or Illinois-Only Class) 

70. Plaintiff Pearson re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

71. In Illinois, the “Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act” 815 

Ill. Comp. Stat. 502/1, et seq. (“the Act”), like the consumer fraud acts of numerous other 

states across the nation, prohibits deceptive acts and practices in the sale of such products as 

Defendants’ Move Free® Advanced products. 

72. Plaintiff Pearson and the Class were injured by Defendants’ deceptive 

misrepresentations, concealments and omissions and these misrepresentations, concealments 

and omissions were material and deceived Plaintiff Pearson and the Class. 

73. Defendants do business in Illinois, sell and distribute their Move Free® 

Advanced products in Illinois, and engaged in deceptive acts and practices in connection with 

the sale of same both in Illinois and elsewhere in the United States. 

74. Defendants’ Products purchased by Plaintiff Pearson and the Class were 

“consumer items” as that term is defined under the Act. 

75. Defendants misrepresented and deceptively concealed, suppressed and/or 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:158 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 17 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

17 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

omitted the material information known to Defendants as set forth above concerning their 

Move Free® Advanced products which has caused damage and injury to Plaintiff Pearson and 

the Class. 

76. Defendants’ deceptive acts occurred in a course of conduct involving trade and 

commerce in Illinois and throughout the United States. 

77. Defendants’ deceptive acts proximately caused actual injury and damage to 

Plaintiff Pearson and the Class. 

78. Defendants intended Plaintiff Pearson and all Class members to rely on their 

representations. 

79. The conduct of the Defendants constituted a consumer fraud under the Illinois 

Consumer Fraud Act and similar laws in other states. 

COUNT IV 

Personal Injuries/ Medical Monitoring Class 

(Applicable to a Multi-State or Illinois-Only Class) 

80. Defendants’ Move Free® Advanced products cause side effects that pose 

dangers to those with diabetes or bleeding disorders. 

81. As the manufacturer and distributor of Move Free® Advanced, Defendants 

possess specialized knowledge regarding the content and effects of the ingredients contained 

in their Products and are in a superior position to learn and did learn that the Products cause 

potentially harmful side effects to those with diabetes or bleeding disorders. Defendants had a 

duty to disclose and warn consumers of these potentially harmful side effects. Defendants 

further had a duty to Plaintiff Pearson and the Class not to expose them to Products known to 

cause bodily harm. 

82. Defendants negligently failed to warn consumers of these potentially serious 

side effects. Defendants further exposed Plaintiff Pearson and the Class to Products known to 

cause bodily harm. 

83. Class members who took or who are currently taking Defendants’ Move Free® 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:159 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 18 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

18 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Advanced products are therefore entitled to medical monitoring. 

COUNT V

Personal Injuries/Negligence 

(Applicable to a Multi-State or Illinois-Only Class) 

84. Plaintiff Pearson re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 

85. Defendants are the owners, sellers and manufacturers of the Move Free® 

Advanced products and, as such, possess specialized knowledge regarding the content and 

effects of the ingredients contained in their Products and are in a superior position to learn and 

did learn that the Products cause potentially harmful side effects. 

86. Upon taking Defendants’ Move Free® Advanced products Plaintiff Pearson 

suffered and experienced bodily injuries including headaches and nausea. 

87. Said bodily injuries were the result of and caused by Defendants’ Move Free® 

Advanced products. 

88. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff Pearson to warn that their Products cause 

potentially harmful side effects. Defendants further had a duty to Plaintiff Pearson not to 

expose him to Products known to cause bodily harm. 

89. Plaintiff Pearson’s bodily injuries were the result of Defendants’ negligence in 

not properly warning Plaintiff Pearson of said side effects. 

COUNT VI

Breach of Express Warranty 

(Applicable to a Multi-State, California-Only or Illinois-Only Class) 

90. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in 

the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein. 

91. Plaintiffs, and each member of the Class, formed a contract with Defendants 

at the time Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class purchased the Move Free® 

Advanced products. The terms of that contract include the promises and affirmations of fact 

made by Defendants on their Move Free® Advanced products’ labels and packages, as 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:160 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 19 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

19 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

described above. These representations constitute express warranties, became part of the 

basis of the bargain, and are part of a standardized contract between Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Class on the one hand, and Defendants on the other. 

92. All conditions precedent to Defendants’ liability under this contract have been 

performed by Plaintiffs and the Class. 

93. Defendants breached the terms of this contract, including the express 

warranties, with Plaintiffs and the Class by not providing products that could provide the 

benefits described above which was the only reason Plaintiffs and Class members purchased 

the Move Free® Advanced products. 

94. As a result of Defendants’ breach of their warranty, Plaintiffs and Class 

members have been damaged in the amount of the purchase price of the Move Free® 

Advanced products they purchased. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment: 

A. Certifying the class as requested herein; 

B. Awarding Plaintiffs and the proposed Class members damages; 

C. Awarding restitution and disgorgement of Defendants’ revenues to Plaintiffs 

and the proposed Class members; 

D. Awarding declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, 

including: enjoining Defendants from continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein, 

and directing Defendants to identify, with court supervision, victims of their conduct and pay 

them restitution and disgorgement of all monies acquired by Defendants by means of any act 

or practice declared by this Court to be wrongful; 

E. Ordering Defendants to engage in a corrective advertising campaign; 

F. Ordering Defendants to provide and offer medical monitoring; 

G. Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

H. Providing such further relief as may be just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:161 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 20 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

20 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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

Dated: March 12, 2012. 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN 

& BALINT, P.C. 

s/Todd D. Carpenter 

TODD D. CARPENTER (234464) 

600 West Broadway, Suite 900 

San Diego, California 92101 

Telephone: (619) 756-6978 

Facsimile: (602) 798-5860 

tcarpenter@bffb.com 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN 

& BALINT, P.C. 

ELAINE A. RYAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

PATRICIA N. SYVERSON (203111) 

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Telephone: (602) 274-1100 

Facsimile: (602) 798-5860 

afriedman@bffb.com 

eryan@bffb.com 

psyverson@bffb.com 

 LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 

STEWART WELTMAN, OF COUNSEL (Admitted Pro 

Hac Vice) 

122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: 312-427-3600 

Fax: 312-427-1850 

 sweltman@futtermanhoward.com 

LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 

HOWARD J. SEDRAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

CHARLES SWEEDLER (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

510 Walnut Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 

Telephone: 215-592-1500 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:162 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 21 of 22
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

21 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on March 9, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 

e-mail addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail notice list, and I hereby certify that I have 

mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the nonCM/ECF participants indicated on the Manual Notice list. 

 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that 

the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 12, 2012. 

By: s/ Todd D. Carpenter 

Todd D. Carpenter 

 

 BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN 

 & BALINT, P.C. 

600 West Broadway Suite 900 

San Diego, California 92101 

Telephone: (619) 756-6978 

Facsimile: (602) 798-5860 

 tcarpenter@bffb.com 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 30-1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:163 Case 3:11-cv-01056-CAB-MDD Document 33-1 Filed 03/12/12 Page 22 of 22