Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP

TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343)

LESLIE E. HURST (178432)

THOMAS J. O’REARDON II (247952)

701 B Street, Suite 1700

San Diego, CA 92101

Tel: 619/338-1100

619/338-1101 (fax)

tblood@bholaw.com

lhurst@bholaw.com

toreardon@bholaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

[Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

LUCY SCHUPP, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION 

f/k/a JOINT JUICE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 24
1 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

Plaintiff Lucy Scupp alleges causes of action against Defendant Premier Nutrition 

Corporation f/k/a Joint Juice, Inc. (“Joint Juice” or “Defendant”), on behalf of herself and all 

others similarly situated, and complains and alleges upon personal knowledge as to her acts 

and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including 

investigation conducted by her attorneys.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a consumer protection class action brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 23 arising out of Defendant’s false advertising its “Joint Juice” Products. Defendant 

claims Joint Juice provides significant health benefits for the joints of all consumers who drink 

its Products. These claimed health benefits are the only reason a consumer would purchase 

Joint Juice. Defendant’s advertising claims, however, are false, misleading, and reasonably 

likely to deceive the public.

2. Defendant markets, sells, and distributes Joint Juice, a line of joint health 

dietary supplements.1Through an extensive, integrated, and widespread nationwide marketing 

campaign, Defendant promises that Joint Juice will support and nourish cartilage, lubricate 

joints, and improve joint comfort. Defendant asserts that the ingredient glucosamine 

hydrochloride will provide these significant health benefits.

3. The same promise is made on all of the subject Joint Juice Products and 

throughout the Joint Juice marketing materials. For example, the Joint Juice six-bottle 

packaging prominently states that the Product “helps keep cartilage lubricated and flexible,” 

and that consumers should “drink daily for healthy, flexible joints.”

4. Throughout its advertising and marketing, Defendant communicated the same 

substantive message on all of the Products’ packaging and labeling: that the Products will 

improve the health of joints and relieve joint pain. As a result, the joint health benefit message 

on the packaging of Defendant’s Products will be collectively referred to as Defendant’s “joint 

 

1

The Joint Juice line consists of: (1) Joint Juice ready-to-drink supplement drink; 

(2) Joint Juice On-The-Go Drink Mix; and (3) Joint Juice Easy Shot Supplement (collectively, 

“Joint Juice” or the “Products”). Plaintiff reserves the right to include other Products as a 

result of discovery.

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 24
2 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

health benefit representations.”

5. Defendant’s advertising and marketing campaign is designed to induce 

consumers to purchase Joint Juice because of their reliance upon the accuracy of the deceptive 

health benefits message. As a result of its extensive marketing campaign (in 2009, Defendant 

spent a reported $3.5 million advertising Joint Juice), since 2009 Defendant has sold over $156 

million dollars of the Joint Juice Products.

6. Defendant, however, has sold products that do not perform as advertised. As a 

result of the misleading messages conveyed by its marketing campaign, Defendant has caused 

consumers to purchase products that do not perform as advertised.

7. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly 

situated consumers to halt Defendant’s dissemination of this false and misleading advertising 

message, to correct the false and misleading perception it has created in the minds of 

consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased Joint Juice.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. The 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 there are in excess of 100 class members, and some of the 

members of the Class are citizens of a state different from Defendant.

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is 

authorized to and does conduct business in California. Defendant has marketed, promoted, 

distributed, and sold Joint Juice in California, and Defendant’s primary place of business is in 

California, rendering exercise of jurisdiction by California courts permissible.

10. 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 Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this 

district. Venue is also proper under 18 U.S.C. §1965(a) because Defendant transacts 

substantial business in this District and is a resident of this District.

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 24
3 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

11. Intradistrict Assignment: Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-2(c)-(d), and 3-5(b), 

this action arises in San Francisco County and Defendant is headquartered in Alameda County, 

and it is therefore appropriate to assign this action to the San Francisco Division.

PARTIES

Plaintiff

12. Lucy Schupp is a citizen of the State of Massachusetts. At all times relevant to 

this action, she resided in Hingham, Massachusetts. In 2015, Plaintiff Schupp was exposed to 

and saw Defendant’s representations by reading the label of Joint Juice Products at a BJ’s store 

located in Hingham, Massachusetts. In addition to that, Plaintiff Schupp was also exposed to 

and saw Defendant’s representations in various television commercials. In reliance on the joint 

health benefit representations Plaintiff purchased Joint Juice from BJ’s on three occasions 

during the year of 2015. By purchasing the falsely advertised Product, Plaintiff suffered injuryin-fact and lost money.

13. The Product does not provide the promised benefits. Had Plaintiff Schupp 

known the truth about Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions at the time of her 

purchase, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product

Defendant

14. Premier Nutrition Corporation (“Premier”) f/k/a Joint Juice, Inc. is a 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Premier’s current 

headquarters is at 5905 Christie Avenue, Emeryville, California, 94608. Prior to Emeryville, 

Premier was headquartered at 188 Spear Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, California 94105. As 

of August 2013, Premier became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Post Holdings, Inc. Premier is 

a manufacturer of high-protein nutrition products, including ready-to-drink shakes, bars, 

powders, and cookies. Premier’s primary brands are Premier Protein and Joint Juice. Premier

manufactures, advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells the Joint Juice Products to tens of 

thousands of consumers in California and throughout the United States. The conduct at issue 

substantially emanates from California. From its headquarters and offices in California, 

Defendant creates the false and deceptive advertising campaign at issue, and promotes, 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 4 of 24
4 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

markets, distributes, and sells the Products to many thousands of consumers throughout the 

United States, including through its retail website. Defendant’s CEO, President, Chief 

Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, marketing employees, research and development, 

and customer service personnel have also been located in California. Defendant’s retail 

distribution vendor has been located in California, and its outside advertising agency was 

located in San Francisco.

15. Joint Juice, Inc. n/k/a Premier Nutrition Corporation was a San Francisco-based 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. Joint Juice, Inc. 

was headquartered at 120 Howard Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, California 94105. Joint 

Juice, Inc. was a leading provider of ready-to-drink glucosamine supplements. Up until its 

acquisition by Premier in October 2011, and from its headquarters and offices in California, 

Joint Juice, Inc. manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the Joint Juice 

Products to tens of thousands of consumers in Massachusetts, California, and throughout the 

United States. On October 12, 2011, Joint Juice, Inc. announced the acquisition of Premier 

Nutrition.

16. Upon information and belief, Joint Juice’s employees with decision-making 

authority relevant to this litigation, including Joint Juice’s executives and marketing 

employees, have been located in California. For example, Mr. Ritterbush, who worked out of 

San Francisco, was the former CEO of Premier and former CEO of Joint Juice. The current 

President and General Manager of Premier (and former Vice President of Marketing) also 

works from Emeryville, California. The outside advertising agency used by Joint Juice was 

located in San Francisco. Further, Joint Juice represents that the Products were created by its 

founder, Dr. Kevin Stone, at the Stone Clinic in San Francisco.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Joint Juice Products

17. Since 1999, on a nationwide basis, Defendant has distributed, marketed, and 

sold the Joint Juice Products.

///

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 5 of 24
5 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

18. The Joint Juice Products are sold by a variety of third-party retailers, including 

Costco, Sam’s Club, Walgreens, Walmart, and Target. Defendant also sells Joint Juice directly 

to consumers through its website.

19. The Joint Juice Products are available in: (1) drink mix packets, which retailed

for approximately $22 for a thirty-count box; (2) eight-ounce beverage bottles, which retailed

for approximately $30 for a thirty-pack, or approximately $6 for a six-pack; and (3) Easy 

ShotTM bottles, which retailed for approximately $15 for a twenty-ounce bottle containing 

sixteen servings.

20. According to Defendant, and as stated on the Products’ packaging, the Joint 

Juice Products contain 1,500 mg per serving of glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin 

sulfate.

21. Glucosamine hydrochloride is a combination of glucosamine (an amino sugar 

compound produced by the body, and which can be isolated from shellfish) where the 

glucosamine is combined with hydrochloric acid.

22. Unlike the Products at issue, other glucosamine-infused products often contain 

glucosamine sulfate, which is a combination of glucosamine and sulfur molecules.

23. Glucosamine is one the most abundant monosaccharides (sugars) in the body.

24. Glucosamine hydrochloride is less expensive than glucosamine sulfate.

25. According to a 2006 study published by the New England Journal of Medicine 

(discussed below), at least 20 million Americans are affected by osteoarthritis – a number that 

is expected to double over the next two decades.

26. According to the Mayo Clinic, the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis include 

joint pain, joint tenderness, joint stiffness, and the inability to move your joint through its full 

range of motion.2

///

///

 

2

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/osteoarthritis/symptoms-causes/dxc20198250 (last visited November 16, 2016).

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 6 of 24
6 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

Defendant’s False and Deceptive Advertising for the Joint Juice Products

27. Since the Products’ launch, Defendant, through its advertisements including on 

the Products’ packaging and labeling, has consistently conveyed the message to consumers 

throughout the United States that Joint Juice helps to support and nourish cartilage, “lubricate” 

joints, and help with “joint comfort,” simply by consuming the Products.

28. Defendant claims that glucosamine hydrochloride is the Products’ primary 

active ingredient, and that chondroitin sulfate is an active ingredient.

29. Specifically, Defendant states on the Products’ packaging and in its marketing 

materials that Joint Juice helps: to support and nourish cartilage, “lubricate” joints, and 

improve joint comfort without any limitation on which joints, for adults of all ages and without 

any limitation on what stages of joint related ailments.

30. In its marketing materials, including on its packaging and labeling, Defendant 

also represents that Joint Juice was “originally developed for pro athletes by orthopedic

surgeon Kevin R. Stone, M.D. to keep joints healthy and flexible.”

31. Defendant’s marketing representations repeat and reinforce the claims made on 

the packaging and labeling for the Products. For example, on its website, Defendant represents 

that “Research indicates that you should take a minimum of 1,500 mg of glucosamine daily 

got joint health. That’s why we put 1,500 mg in every Joint Juice product” and “Glucosamine 

works to lubricate your joints by helping cartilage tissue absorb water. This helps cartilage 

perform its job of cushioning and mobility.”3

32. Defendant’s advertising deceptively reinforces the health benefits message 

through references to “expert stories,” including from Dr. Kevin Stone, Joint Juice’s founder 

and co-owner. According to an article written by Dr. Stone and posted on Defendant’s website, 

“[t]aking glucosamine and chondroitin together – in the liquid formula found only in Joint 

Juice® products – ensure that you get a full day’s supply of glucosamine (1,500 mg) and 

chondroitin to maintain healthy and happy joints.”

 

3

http://www.jointjuice.com/faq/general-information (last visited November 16, 2016).

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 7 of 24
7 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

33. Defendant’s website also contains a prominent link to a “Joint Juice® joint 

health assessment.” This marketing gimmick further reinforces the false and misleading 

representation that Joint Juice will provide the significant, advertised health benefits.

34. Likewise, in a 60-second, nationwide television commercial, Joint Juice 

spokesman Joe Montana, who states that “my joints have gotten a little stiff lately and at first I 

thought I had to live with it because of pro football and just getting older,” makes the false and 

deceptive representations that “the glucosamine and chondroitin lubricates and cushions the 

cartilage in my joints so I can move more easily . . . it works great for anyone who likes to 

keep moving!” Further adding unfounded credibility to the deceptive claim, the Joint Juice 

advertisement also states that Joint Juice “was originally developed by an orthopedic surgeon 

for pro athletes.”4 According to Defendant, “glucosamine and chondroitin have been proven to 

help maintain joint function and mobility.”5

35. The Joint Juice packaging also prominently features the Arthritis Foundation 

logo because it attracts purchasers who suffer from arthritis and joint pain. To reinforce the 

message, the labels state “Joint Juice is proud to support the Arthritis Foundation’s efforts to 

help people take control of arthritis” or that Defendant “will donate a portion of the proceeds

to the Arthritis Foundation . . . to help people take control of arthritis.”

36. Since 2010, Joint Juice ready-to-drink packaging has remained materially 

identical, always focused on the promised joint health benefits: “A bottle a day keeps your 

joints in play,” “Drink Daily for Healthy, Flexible Joints,” “HELPS KEEP CARTILAGE 

LUBRICATED AND FLEXIBLE,” and “For Healthy, Flexible Joints.”

37. The Products’ packaging appears as follows:

 

4

“Extraordinary Joe,” available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qOqK_GjoUM 

(last visited March 15, 2013); see also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYN-hoTYELE (30 

second version of the “Extraordinary Joe” television ad makes the same representations) (last 

visited Nov. 10, 2016).

5

“Joe Montana Partners with Joint Juice, Inc. to Get American on a Health Joint 

Regimen,” available at http://www.bevnet.com/news/2011/joe-montana-partners-with-jointjuice-inc-to-get-americans-on-a-healthy-joint-regimen (last visited Nov. 10, 2016).

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 8 of 24
8 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

EasyShotTM (Front) EasyShotTM (Back)

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 9 of 24
9 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

Drink Mix Box (Front) Drink Mix Box (Back)

Ready-to-Drink Beverage Bottle Six-Pack 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 10 of 24
10 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

Scientific Studies Confirm that Joint Juice Is Not Effective and Defendant’s Health 

Benefits Message Is False and Deceptive

38. Despite Defendant’s representations, glucosamine, alone or in combination 

with other ingredients including chondroitin sulfate, is not effective in providing the 

represented joint health benefits.

39. All of the meta-analysis studies conclude that glucosamine and chondroitin do 

nothing. Meta-analysis is at the top of the hierarchy of medical evidence. See Reference 

Manual on Scientific Evidence at 607. “Meta-analysis is a method of pooling study results to 

arrive at a single figure to represent the totality of the studies reviewed.” Id. At least ten metaanalyses on the clinical effects of glucosamine and/or chondroitin have been performed, and 

all ten found that the pooled results from the well-conducted, non-industry studies demonstrate 

glucosamine, alone or in combination with chondroitin, does not work. These ten metaanalyses, which collectively reviewed the results from tens of clinical studies involving 

thousands of people, are: Towheed, 2005 (20 studies, 2,570 subjects); Towheed, 2009

(25 studies, 4,963 subjects); Vlad, 2007 (15 studies); McAlindon, 2000 (15 studies); Eriksen, 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 11 of 24
11 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

2014 (25 studies, 3,458 subjects); Wandel, 2010 (10 studies, 3,803 subjects); Reichenbach, 

2007 (20 studies, 3,846 subjects); Wu, 2013 (19 studies, 3,159 subjects); Singh, 2015

(43 studies, 4,962 subjects); and Kongtharvonskul, 2015 (31 studies).

40. For example, in their 2007 meta-analysis, Vlad, et al. reviewed all studies 

involving glucosamine hydrochloride and concluded that “[g]lucosamine hydrochloride is not 

effective.” Glucosamine for Pain in Osteoarthritis, 56:7 Arthritis Rheum. 2267-77 (2007); see 

also id. at 2275 (“we believe that there is sufficient information to conclude that glucosamine 

hydrochloride lacks efficacy for pain in OA”).

41. The 2010 meta-analysis by Wandel, et al., entitled Effects of Glucosamine, 

Chondroitin, Or Placebo In Patients With Osteoarthritis Or Hip Or Knee: Network MetaAnalysis, BMJ 341:c4675 (2010), examined prior studies involving glucosamine and 

chondroitin, alone or in combination, and whether they relieved the symptoms or progression 

of arthritis of the knee or hip. The study authors reported that glucosamine and chondroitin, 

alone or in combination, did not reduce joint pain or have an impact on the narrowing of joint 

space: “Our findings indicate that glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not 

result in a relevant reduction of joint pain nor affect joint space narrowing compared with 

placebo.” Id. at 8. The authors further concluded “[w]e believe it unlikely that future trials will 

show a clinically relevant benefit of any of the evaluated preparations.” Id.

42. Eriksen, 2014, is a meta-analysis published in a journal of the American 

College of Rheumatology. It examined 25 placebo-controlled clinical studies involving 

glucosamine, including GAIT, concluding “We are confident that glucosamine by and large 

has no clinically important effect.” Eriksen, Patrick, Else M. Bartels, Roy D. Altman, Henning 

Bliddal, Carsten Juhl, and Robin Christensen, Risk of Bias and Brand Explain the Observed 

Inconsistency in Trials on Glucosamine for Symptomatic Relief of Osteoarthritis: A Meta‐

Analysis of Placebo‐Controlled Trials, ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH 66, no. 12 (2014) 

at 1844-1855; see also id. (“[o]ur meta-analysis provides high-quality evidence that 

glucosamine in forms other than the one made by Rottapharm[] consistently does not reduce 

pain more than placebo”).

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 12 of 24
12 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

43. Towheed 2009, a prestigious Cochrane Collaboration publication, reviewed 25 

clinical studies with 4,963 subjects and found no benefits from glucosamine. See Towheed T., 

et al., Glucosamine therapy for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database of Systematic 

Reviews 2005, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD002946 (Updated and Published in Issue 4, 2009). 

Dr. Towheed and co-authors concluded, “The high quality studies showed that pain improved 

about the same whether people took glucosamine or fake pills.” Id. at 2.

44. The findings of the gold standard, individual clinical studies confirm the metaanalyses’ conclusion that glucosamine and chondroitin do not work.

45. In the late 1990s, the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) funded the $12.5 

million multicenter GAIT study. GAIT was the first large-scale multicenter clinical trial in the 

United States on glucosamine and chondroitin. The first GAIT publication examined results 

from 1,583 subjects randomized to receive one of five treatments over 6 months: (1) 1500 mg 

glucosamine hydrochloride, (2) 1200 mg chondroitin, (3) glucosamine plus chondroitin, 

(4) celecoxib, or (5) placebo. The GAIT I publication, published in 2006 in the New England 

Journal of Medicine (the “2006 GAIT Study”), reported that glucosamine and chondroitin 

were not effective in reducing pain. See Clegg, D., et al., Glucosamine, Chondroitin Sulfate, 

and the Two in Combination for Painful Knee Osteoarthritis, 354 New England J. of Med. 

795, 806 (2006) (“The analysis of the primary outcome measure did not show that either 

[glucosamine or chondroitin], alone or in combination, was efficacious.”).

46. Subsequent GAIT studies in 2008 and 2010 reported that glucosamine and 

chondroitin did not rebuild cartilage and were otherwise ineffective – even in patients with 

moderate to severe knee pain for which the 2006 reported results were inconclusive. See

Sawitzke, A.D., et al., The Effect of Glucosamine and/or Chondroitin Sulfate on the 

Progression of Knee Osteoarthritis: A GAIT Report, 58(10) J. Arthritis Rheum. 3183–91 (Oct. 

2008) (“GAIT II”). The GAIT II publication, which was based on 572 subjects across nine 

sites, reported no difference in joint space width between those receiving glucosamine and 

chondroitin or placebo.

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 13 of 24
13 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

47. The 2010 GAIT III publication, with 662 subjects, also concluded glucosamine 

and chondroitin are no more effective in relieving pain than placebo. See Sawitzke, A.D., 

Clinical Efficacy And Safety Of Glucosamine, Chondroitin Sulphate, Their Combination, 

Celecoxib Or Placebo Taken To Treat Osteoarthritis Of The Knee: 2-Year Results From 

GAIT, 69(8) Ann Rhem. Dis. 1459-64 (Aug. 2010) (“GAIT III”).

48. The GAIT studies are consistent with the reported results of prior and 

subsequent studies. For example, a 1999 study involving 100 subjects by Houpt, et al., entitled 

Effect of glucosamine hydrochloride in the treatment of pain of osteoarthritis of the knee, 

26(11) J. Rheumatol. 2423-30 (1999), found that glucosamine hydrochloride performed no 

better than placebo at reducing pain at the conclusion of the eight week trial.

49. Likewise, a 2004 study by McAlindon, et al., entitled Effectiveness of 

Glucosamine For Symptoms of Knee Osteoarthritis: Results From and Internet-Based 

Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial, 117(9) Am. J. Med. 649-9 (Nov. 2004), 

concluded that “glucosamine was no more effective than placebo in treating symptoms of knee 

osteoarthritis” – in short, that glucosamine is ineffective. Id. at 646 (“we found no difference 

between the glucosamine and placebo groups in any of the outcome measures, at any of the 

assessment time points”).

50. Many studies have also confirmed there is a significant “placebo” effect with 

respect to consumption of products represented to be effective in providing joint health 

benefits such as Defendant’s Products.

51. Indeed, more than 30% of persons who took placebos in these studies believed 

that they were experiencing joint health benefits when all they were taking was a placebo.

52. A 2004 study by Cibere, et al., entitled Randomized, Double-Blind, PlaceboControlled Glucosamine Discontinuation Trial In Knee Osteoarthritis, 51(5) Arthritis Care & 

Research 738-45 (Oct. 15, 2004), studied users of glucosamine who had claimed to have 

experienced at least moderate improvement after starting glucosamine. These patients were 

divided into two groups – one that continued using glucosamine and one that was given a 

placebo. For six months, the primary outcome observed was the proportion of disease flares in 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 14 of 24
14 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

the glucosamine and placebo groups. A secondary outcome was the time to disease flare. The 

study results reflected that there were no differences in either the primary or secondary 

outcomes for glucosamine and placebo. The authors concluded that the study provided no 

evidence of symptomatic benefit from continued use of glucosamine – in other words, any 

prior perceived benefits were due to the placebo effect and not glucosamine. Id. at 743 (“In 

this study, we found that knee OA disease flare occurred as frequently, as quickly, and as 

severely in patients who were randomized to continue receiving glucosamine compared with 

those who received placebo. As a result, the efficacy of glucosamine as a symptom-modifying 

drug in knee OA is not supported by our study.”).

53. To similar effect, in the “Joints on Glucosamine” or “JOG” study, Dr. Kwoh 

and co-authors concluded that glucosamine was not effective in preventing the worsening of 

cartilage damage. See Kwoh CK, et al., Effect of Oral Glucosamine on Joint Structure in 

Individuals With Chronic Knee Pain: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial, 66(4) 

Arthritis Rheumatol., 930-9 (2014). JOG was a 201-person, randomized clinical trial 

comparing those who consumed the same type of glucosamine in Joint Juice and those 

consuming a placebo. JOG examined subjects without arthritis. The JOG study found: “There 

was no difference between the two groups” in terms of cartilage loss and “[t]here were no 

significant differences between the glucosamine and control groups from baseline to the 12-

week assessment, the 12-week to 24-week assessment, or from baseline to 24 weeks for the 

WOMAC pain or function subscales or the total WOMAC score.” Id. at 935.

54. The uniform consensus of clinical treatment protocols, sometimes referred to as 

clinical practice guidelines, is that glucosamine and chondroitin do not work, should not be 

used, and are not cost effective. Clinical treatment protocols are evidence-based, developed 

from an in-depth cross-review of studies and meta-analyses by experts in the field. For 

example, the National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (“NCCCC”) reported “the 

evidence to support the efficacy of glucosamine hydrochloride as a symptom modifier is poor” 

and the “evidence for efficacy of chondroitin was less convincing.” NCCCC, Osteoarthritis 

National Clinical Guideline for Care and Management of Adults, Royal College of Physicians, 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 15 of 24
15 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

London 2008. Consistent with its lack of efficacy findings, the NCCCC Guideline did not 

recommend the use of glucosamine or chondroitin for treating osteoarthritis. Id. at 33.

55. In December 2008, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 

(“AAOS”) published clinical practice guidelines for the Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee 

(nonarthroplasty), and made a “strong” recommendation that “glucosamine and sulfate or 

hydrochloride not be prescribed for patients with symptomatic OA of the knee.” Richmond, et 

al., Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee (nonarthroplasty), J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. Vol. 

17 No. 9 591-600 (2009). This AAOS recommendation was based on a 2007 report from the 

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), which states that “the best available 

evidence found that glucosamine hydrochloride, chondroitin sulfate, or their combination did 

not have any clinical benefit in patients with primary OA of the knee.” Samson, et al., 

Treatment of Primary and Secondary Osteoarthritis of the Knee, Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality, 2007 Sep. 1. Report No. 157.

56. In 2013, the AAOS published updated clinical practice guidelines, and based on 

its review of twenty-one human studies, again made a “strong” recommendation that neither 

glucosamine nor chondroitin be used for patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.

See Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee, Evidence-Based Guideline (2d Ed.), American 

Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2013) at 262.

57. The American College of Rheumatology, and the United Kingdom National 

Institute for Health and Care Excellence (“NICE”) also recommend against using glucosamine 

or chondroitin. See Hochberg, M.C., et al., American College of Rheumatology 2012 

Recommendations for the Use of Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Therapies in 

Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee. Arthritis Care & Research 2012; 64(4):465-474; 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Clinical Guidelines: Osteoarthritis Care and 

management in adults (February 2014).

58. In 2011, Miller and Clegg, after surveying the clinical study history of 

glucosamine and chondroitin, concluded that, “[t]he cost-effectiveness of these dietary 

supplements alone or in combination in the treatment of OA has not been demonstrated in 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 16 of 24
16 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

North America.” Miller, K. and Clegg, D., Glucosamine and Chondroitin Sulfate, Rheum. Dis. 

Clin. N. Am. 37 103-118 (2011).

59. Even studies not concerning the type of glucosamine in the Joint Juice Products 

demonstrate that glucosamine does not provide the joint health benefits that Defendant 

represents. For example, a study by Rozendaal, et al., entitled Effect of Glucosamine Sulfate on 

Hip Osteoarthritis, 148 Ann. of Intern. Med. 268-77 (2008), assessing the effectiveness of 

glucosamine on the symptoms and structural progression of hip osteoarthritis during two years 

of treatment, concluded that glucosamine was no better than placebo in reducing symptoms 

and progression of hip osteoarthritis.

60. In 2012, a report by Rovati, et al. entitled Crystalline glucosamine sulfate in the 

management of knee osteoarthritis: efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic properties, Ther Adv 

Musculoskel Dis 4(3):167-180 (2012), noted that glucosamine hydrochloride “ha[s] never 

been shown to be effective.”

61. On July 7, 2010, Wilkens, et al., reported that there was no difference between 

placebo and glucosamine for the treatment of low back pain and lumbar osteoarthritis and that 

neither glucosamine nor placebo were effective in reducing pain related disability. The 

researchers also concluded that, “Based on our results, it seems unwise to recommend 

glucosamine to all patients” with low back pain and lumbar osteoarthritis. Wilkens, et al., 

Effect of Glucosamine on Pain-Related Disability in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain 

and Degenerative Lumbar Osteoarthritis, 304(1) JAMA 45-52 (July 7, 2010).

62. In 2009, a panel of scientists from the European Food Safety Authority 

(“EFSA”) (a panel established by the European Union to provide independent scientific advice 

to improve food safety and consumer protection), reviewed nineteen studies submitted by an 

applicant, and concluded that “a cause and effect relationship has not been established between 

the consumption of glucosamine hydrochloride and a reduced rate of cartilage degeneration in 

individuals without osteoarthritis.” EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies,

Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to glucosamine 

hydrochloride and reduced rate of cartilage degeneration and reduced risk of osteoarthritis, 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 17 of 24
17 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

EFSA Journal (2009), 7(10):1358.

63. In a separate opinion from 2009, an EFSA panel examined the evidence for 

glucosamine (either hydrochloride or sulfate) alone or in combination with chondroitin sulfate 

and maintenance of joints. The claimed effect was “joint health,” and the proposed claims 

included “helps to maintain healthy joint,” “supports mobility,” and “helps to keep joints 

supple and flexible.” Based on its review of eleven human intervention studies, three metaanalyses, 21 reviews and background papers, two animal studies, one in vitro study, one short 

report, and one case report, the EFSA panel concluded that “a cause and effect relationship has 

not been established between the consumption of glucosamine (either as glucosamine 

hydrochloride or as glucosamine sulphate), either alone or in combination with chondroitin 

sulphate, and the maintenance of normal joints.” EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition 

and Allergies, Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to glucosamine 

alone or in combination with chondroitin sulphate and maintenance of joints and reduction of 

inflammation, EFSA Journal (2009), 7(9):1264.

64. In 2012, EFSA examined the evidence glucosamine sulphate or glucosamine 

hydrochloride, and a claimed effect of “contributes to the maintenance of normal joint 

cartilage.” Based on its review of 61 references provided by Merck Consumer Healthcare, the 

EFSA panel concluded that “a cause and effect relationship has not been established between 

the consumption of glucosamine and maintenance of normal joint cartilage in individuals 

without osteoarthritis.” EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies, Scientific 

Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to glucosamine and maintenance of 

normal joint cartilage, EFSA Journal 2012, 10(5): 2691.

The Impact of Defendant’s Wrongful Conduct

65. Despite clinical studies that show the ingredients in Defendant’s Joint Juice 

Products are ineffective, Defendant conveyed and continues to convey one uniform health 

benefits message: Joint Juice supports and nourishes cartilage, “lubricates” joints, and 

improves joint comfort in all joints in the human body, for adults of all ages and for all manner 

and stages of joint-related ailments.

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 18 of 24
18 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

66. As the inventor, manufacturer, and distributor of Joint Juice, Defendant 

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

in Joint Juice and Defendant is in a superior position to know whether its Products work as 

advertised.

67. Specifically, Defendant knew, but failed to disclose, that Joint Juice does not 

provide the joint health benefits represented and that well-conducted, clinical studies have 

found the ingredients in Joint Juice to be ineffective in providing the joint health benefits 

represented by Defendant.

68. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be deceived or misled by Defendant’s 

false and deceptive joint health benefit representations. Plaintiff purchased Joint Juice during 

the Class period and in doing so, read and considered the Product’s label and based her

decision to purchase the Product on the joint health benefit representations on the Product 

packaging. Defendant’s joint health benefit representations and omissions were a material 

factor in influencing Plaintiff’s decision to purchase the Product.

69. The only purpose for purchasing Joint Juice is to obtain the represented joint 

health benefits. Although it does not provide the represented, significant health benefits, Joint 

Juice retails for approximately $6 per six-pack.

6

CLASS DEFINITION AND ALLEGATIONS

70. Plaintiff asserts her respective counts on behalf of a class of Massachusetts

purchasers pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (3) defined as:

All persons who purchased in Massachusetts any Joint Juice Product.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and 

directors; those who purchased the Joint Juice Products for the purpose of resale; all persons 

who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; the judge to whom this case is 

assigned and any immediate family members thereof; and those who assert claims for personal 

 

6 At Walmart’s online store, a six-pack of 8-ounce bottles costs $4.42. 

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Joint-Juice-Glucosamine-Chondroitin-Blend-Blueberry-Acai-4-

6pk-8oz/14292593 (last visited Nov. 10, 2016); see also http://shop.jointjuice.com/Joint-JuiceReadytoDrink-Supplement--Blueberry-Acai/p/JTJ-042203&c=JointJuice@Drinks (6-pack of 8 

ounce bottles retails for $8.94 on jointjuice.com).

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 19 of 24
19 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

injury.

71. Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for classwide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiff can prove the elements of her respective claims on a classwide basis using the same 

evidence as would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same 

claims.

72. Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of the 

Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Defendant 

has sold many thousands of units of Products to Class members.

73. Commonality and Predominance – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3). This action involves common questions of law and fact, which 

predominate over any questions affecting individual Class members, including, without 

limitation:

(a) Whether the representations discussed herein that Defendant made 

about its Joint Juice Products were or are true, or are misleading, or 

likely to deceive;

(b) Whether Defendant’s conduct violates public policy;

(c) Whether Defendant engaged in false or misleading advertising;

(d) Whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes violations of the laws asserted 

herein;

(e) Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members have been injured and 

the proper measure of their losses as a result of those injuries; and 

(f) Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to injunctive, 

declaratory, or other equitable relief.

74. Typicality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are 

typical of the other Class members’ claims because, among other things, all Class members 

were comparably injured through the uniform prohibited conduct described above.

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 20 of 24
20 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

75. Adequacy of Representation – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).

Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because her interests do not conflict with 

the interests of the other Class members she seeks to represent; she has retained counsel 

competent and experienced in complex commercial and class action litigation; and Plaintiff

intends to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the Class members will be fairly 

and adequately protected by the Plaintiff and her counsel.

76. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(b)(2). Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory 

relief, as described below, with respect to Class as a whole.

77. Superiority – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). A class action is 

superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, 

and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. 

The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiff and the other Class members are 

relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually 

litigate their claims against Defendant, so it would be impracticable for Class members to 

individually seek redress for Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Even if Class members could 

afford individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation creates a 

potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense to 

all parties and the court system. By 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.

CLAIMS ALLEGED

COUNT I

Violation of Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act

Mass. Gen. Laws 93A §1, et seq.

78. Plaintiff Schupp incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein.

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 21 of 24
21 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

79. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Massachusetts’ Consumer 

Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws 93A §1, et seq. (the “Consumer Protection Act”). Plaintiff 

Schupp is a person within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Mass. Gen. Laws 

93A §1(a). Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce as defined by the Consumer Protection 

Act. Mass. Gen. Laws 93A §1(b).

80. The Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws 93A §2, declares that “unfair 

methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or 

commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”

81. Defendant violated the Consumer Protection Act by representing through its 

advertisements of Joint Juice the efficacy of Joint Juice when such representations and 

advertisements were unsubstantiated, false, and misleading.

82. Defendant’s conduct, including misrepresenting the efficacy of Joint Juice in 

the course of commerce, inflicted real injury and damage upon Plaintiff Schupp and the Class.

83. Thus, as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff Schupp and the 

Class are entitled to judgment, full restitution and damages or twenty-five dollars, whichever is 

greater, or up to three but not less than two times such amount for a willful or knowing 

violation, or for a bad faith refusal to grant relief upon demand. Mass. Gen. Laws 93A §9(3).

Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek equitable relief, including an injunction 

requiring Defendant to cease its deceptive advertising and to conduct a corrective advertising 

campaign. Mass. Gen. Laws 93A §9(1).

84. Plaintiff Schupp and Class members also seek attorneys’ fees and costs 

pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws 93A §9(3A).

85. Defendant has willfully or knowingly engaged in the unfair and deceptive acts 

and practices that constitute violations of the Consumer Protection Act or refused in bad faith 

to grant relief upon demand.

///

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 22 of 24
22 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

86. At least thirty days prior to filing this complaint, Plaintiff Schupp on behalf of 

herself and other members of the Class, notified Defendant in writing of the demand for relief 

and described the unfair and deceptive acts and practices relied on and the injury suffered. 

Mass. Gen. Laws 93A §9(3).

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all claims in this Complaint so triable.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other members of the Class, 

respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant, as 

follows:

A. Declaring that this action is a proper class action, certifying the Class as 

requested herein, designating Plaintiff as Class Representative and appointing the undersigned 

counsel as Class Counsel;

B. Ordering Defendant to pay actual damages to Plaintiff and the other members 

of the Class;

C. Ordering Defendant to pay punitive damages, as allowable by law, to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class;

D. Ordering Defendant to pay statutory damages, as allowable by the statutes 

asserted herein, to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class;

E. Awarding injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including enjoining 

Defendant from continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein, and ordering Defendant 

to engage in a corrective advertising campaign;

F. Ordering Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to Plaintiff and 

the other members of the Class;

G. Ordering Defendant to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any 

amounts awarded; and

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 23 of 24
23 Case No. 3:17-cv-00054

00112798 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – SCHUPP

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

BLOOD 

HURST 

& O’REARDON, LLP

H. Ordering such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 5, 2017 BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP

TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343)

LESLIE E. HURST (178432)

THOMAS J. O’REARDON II (247952)

By: s/ Timothy G. Blood

TIMOTHY G. BLOOD

701 B Street, Suite 1700

San Diego, CA 92101

Tel: 619/338-1100

619/338-1101 (fax)

tblood@bholaw.com

lhurst@bholaw.com

toreardon@bholaw.com

CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA

 & CARPENTER, LLP

TODD D. CARPENTER (234464)

402 West Broadway, 29th Floor

San Diego, CA 92101

Tel: 619/347-3517

619/756-6991 (fax)

tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.

ADAM J. LEVITT*

EDMUND S. ARONOWITZ*

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200

Chicago, IL 60602

Tel: 312/214-0000

312/214-0001 (fax)

alevitt@gelaw.com

earonowitz@gelaw.com

SIPRUT PC

JOSEPH J. SIPRUT*

17 N. State Street, Suite 1600

Chicago, IL 60602

Tel: 312/236-0000

312/948-9212 (fax)

jsiprut@siprut.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 24 of 24