UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TIMOTHY KERRIGAN, LORI MIKOVICH 

and RYAN M. VALLI, individually, and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

VISALUS, INC., a corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-12693 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL JUDGMENT 

Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Timothy Kerrigan, Lori Mikovich and 

Ryan Valli (“Named Plaintiffs”) acting individually and on behalf of the Settlement 

Class, filed an Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement and 

Final Judgment (the “Motion”). The Motion seeks final approval of the Class 

Representatives’ agreement (“Agreement”), as specified in their written settlement 

agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) with ViSalus, Inc. (“ViSalus”), Nick 

Sarnicola, Robert Goergen, Sr., Todd Goergen, Ryan Blair, Blake Mallen, Frank 

Varon, Kyle Pacetti, Jr., Michael Craig, Timothy Kirkland, Holley Kirkland, Aaron 

Fortner, Rachel Jackson, Tara Wilson, Anthony Lucero, Rhonda Lucero, Jake 

Trzcinski, Gary J. Reynolds, Kevin Merriweather, Ropart Asset Management Fund 
2 

I, LLC, Ropart Asset Management Fund II, LLC, Living Trust Dated 9/30/1991 

f/b/o Robert B. Goergen, OCD Marketing, Inc., Power Couple, Inc., Arrive By 25, 

Inc., BAM Ventures, Inc., Gooder, LLC, Red Letters, LLC, M-Power Path, Inc., A 

Berry Good Life, Inc., Network Dynamics America Corp., Freedom Legacy, LLC, 

Residual Marketing, Inc., Got Heart Global, Inc., Jaketrz, Inc., Mojos Legacy, LLC, 

Beachlifestyle Enterprises, LLC, Wealth Builder International, Prospex Automated 

Wealth Systems, Inc., 9248-2587 Quebec, Inc., Jason O’Toole, and Lori Petrilli 

(collectively “Defendants”) to settle all individual and class claims that have, or 

could have, been made in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint as specified in 

their written settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). This Court, having 

reviewed the Motion and the exhibits, including the Settlement Agreement, finds 

itself to be apprised of the issues and grants the Motion. 

NOW, THEREFORE, this Court, having heard the oral presentations made 

at the Final Approval Hearing, having reviewed the submissions presented 

regarding the proposed Settlement, having determined that the Settlement is fair, 

adequate, and reasonable, and having received arguments concerning the award of 

attorneys’ fees, and having reviewed the materials in connection therewith, and 

now deeming itself to be fully informed; 
3 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED 

THAT: 

1. The capitalized terms used in this Order and Judgment shall have the 

same meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement except as may otherwise be 

ordered. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, all 

claims raised therein, and all Parties thereto, including the members of the 

Settlement Class. 

3. This Court finds, solely to consider this Agreement, that the 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied, including 

requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, 

manageability of the Settlement Class for settlement, that common issues of law 

and fact predominate over individual issues, that common issues of law and fact 

predominate over individual issues, and that settlement and certification of the 

Settlement Class is superior to alternative means of resolving the claims and 

disputes. 

4. The Settlement Class, which will be bound by this Final Approval 

Order and Judgment, shall include all members of the Settlement Class who did not 

submit timely and valid requests for exclusion. The following twenty-two (22) 

individuals, members of the Settlement Class, timely submitted notices to opt out 
4 

of this class settlement, and therefore their rights are not affected by this final 

judgment: (1) Johnny Volpe, ViSalus IP #3396754; (2) Victoria Hughes, ViSalus 

IP #1822936; (3) Cynthia Cialdella, ViSalus IP #2757479; (4) Alison Belgrave, 

ViSalus IP #1330764; (5) Carlos Ubinas ,ViSalus IP #2502998; (6) Jean-Michel 

Moulin, ViSalus IP #1621357; (7) Kimberley Earl, ViSalus IP #3462962; (8) 

Maxime Lacoursiere, ViSalus IP #2329006; (9) Benoit Giguere, ViSalus IP 

#1269371; (10) Caroline Dombroskie, ViSalus IP #3953459; (11) Christopher 

Scarfo, ViSalus IP #514227; (12) Youri Durocher, ViSalus IP #1631810; (13) 

Claudette Grondin, ViSalus IP #1269648; (14) Shakeel Khan, ViSalus IP #1422532; 

(15) Victoria Loughlin, ViSalus IP #667640; (16) Willington Tique, ViSalus IP 

#1247502; (17) Blake Moore, ViSalus IP #407918; (18) Jodi Woodside, ViSalus IP 

#650736; (19) Julie Grenier, ViSalus IP #2284611; (20) Callie Chicoine, ViSalus 

IP #748296; (21) Cindy Long, ViSalus IP #817462; and (22) Susan Escritor, 

ViSalus IP #1921072. 

5. The Plaintiffs Timothy Kerrigan, Lori Mikovich and Ryan Valli have 

served fairly and adequately as Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. 

6. These attorneys and their respective firms have served fairly and 

adequately as Class Counsel: 
5 

Andrew Kochanowski 

Lance C. Young 

Sommers Schwartz, P.C. 

One Towne Square, Suite 1700 

Southfield, MI 48076 

Matthew Prebeg 

Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC 

8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 307 

Houston, TX 77017 

Edward Wallace 

Mark Miller 

Wexler Wallace LLP 

55 W. Monroe St. Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603 

7. For purposes of this Final Approval Order and Judgment, the 

Settlement Class is defined as follows: 

All current or former Independent Promoters (“IPs”) of ViSalus who 

reside in the United States or Canada that lost money as a ViSalus IP 

between July 9, 2008 and the Preliminary Approval Date of June 14, 

2019. In determining whether an IP lost money as an IP for purposes 

of this Settlement Class, the following calculation was used: 

a. $49.00 of the cost of any ViSalus promoter system purchased 

(regardless of additional amounts spent above $49.00); plus 

b. the costs spent on Vi-Net; plus 

c. all renewal fees paid by the IP, minus 

d. all commissions received by the IP; minus 

e. the value of all free product received by the IP (including, but not 

limited to, free products received as part of the 3 for Free

promotion); and minus 

f. the value of all Vi Points earned by the IP. 
6 

8. Excluded from the Settlement Class, even if they meet the criteria 

above, are (i) IPs who profited from ViSalus (that is, earned more as a ViSalus IP 

than they paid ViSalus); (ii) Defendants, and any IPs owned, controlled or 

otherwise affiliated with any Defendant other than merely by the IP’s status as an 

IP; (iii) the presiding judge(s) and his or her (or their) immediate family; (iv) any 

individual that elects to be excluded from the Settlement Class; and (v) any person 

who has previously released claims against Defendants or whose claims have been 

fully and finally adjudicated by a court with jurisdiction over the claims. 

9. This Court finds that the Notice Plan in the Settlement Agreement and 

effectuated under the Preliminary Approval Order constitutes the best notice 

practicable under the circumstances and constitutes due and sufficient notice to 

the Settlement Class of the pendency, certification of the Settlement Class for 

settlement only, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the Final Approval 

Hearing, and satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the United States Constitution, and any other applicable law. This Court further 

finds that Defendants have fully and timely met the requirements for notice to 

appropriate federal and state officials under 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and this Order is 

issued ninety (90) or more days after the service of such notice. 
7 

10. The Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests 

of the Settlement Class, considering the risks that both sides faced regarding the 

merits of the claim alleged and remedies requested, the risks of maintaining a class 

action, and the expense and duration of further litigation. Therefore, this Court has 

determined that the Agreement should be approved. The Parties shall effectuate the 

Agreement according to its terms. The Settlement Agreement and every term and 

provision thereof shall be deemed incorporated herein as if explicitly set forth and 

shall have the full force of an Order of this Court. 

11. Upon the Effective Date, the Settlement Class, each of the Class 

Members, and the Named Plaintiffs (collectively, “Releasers”) shall have, by 

operation of this Approval Order and Final Judgment, fully, finally and forever 

released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Persons from all Released 

Claims under the Agreement. 

12. Releasers are permanently barred and enjoined from instituting,

commencing or prosecuting, either directly or in any other capacity, any Released 

Claim against any of the Released Persons. 

13. This Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Settlement Agreement, 

the Agreement which it reflects, and any and all acts, statements, documents or 

proceedings relating to the Agreement are not, and shall not be construed as or used 

as an admission by or against Defendants or any other Released Person of any fault, 
8 

wrongdoing, or liability on their part, or of the validity of any Released Claim or of 

the existence or amount of damages. 

14. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs and all members of the Settlement 

Class are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. Except as otherwise provided 

in this Order, awarding attorneys’ fees and costs, the parties shall bear their own 

costs and attorneys’ fees. The parties have agreed that ViSalus will pay an award 

of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount determined by the Court. The Court has 

examined the Class counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees detailing the attorneys’ 

time logged, usual and customary rates, expenses and awards in similar cases in 

light of the six factors described by the Sixth Circuit in Ramey v. Cincinnati 

Enquirer, Inc., (6th Cir. 1974) and determines that an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs in the amount of $4,265,000 is reasonable and should be, and is herewith, 

awarded.

15. The Named Plaintiffs have, in the opinion of the Court, worked hard 

on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court therefore approves incentive awards 

to the Named Plaintiffs in the following amounts: (i) Timothy Kerrigan, 

$15,000.00; (ii) Lori Mikovich, $10,000.00; and (iii) Ryan Valli, $10,000.00. 

16. This Court finds that no reason exists for delay in entering this 

Approval Order and Final Judgment, so the Clerk is directed forthwith to enter this 

Approval Order and Final Judgment. However, the Court reserves jurisdiction over 
9 

implementation of the Agreement, including enforcement and administration of the 

agreement and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 

17. The Parties, without further approval from this Court, are permitted to 

adopt such amendments, modifications and expansions of the Agreement and its 

implementing documents (including all exhibits to the Settlement Agreement) as 

may be necessary or expedient to implement the Agreement, so long as they are 

consistent in all material respects with the Final Order and Judgment and do not 

limit the rights of the Settlement Class or any of the Class Members. 

18. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment for appeal, the 

Court retains jurisdiction on all matters related to the administration, enforcement, 

and interpretation of the Agreement and this Final Order and Judgment, and for any 

other necessary purpose. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 1, 2019 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on October 1, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764