-1- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

VENABLE LLP

Angel A. Garganta (SBN 163957) 

 Email: agarganta@venable.com 

Jessica L. Grant (SBN 178138) 

 Email: jgrant@venable.com 

Amit Rana (SBN 291921) 

 Email: arana@venable.com 

Yuhan Chi (SBN 324072) 

 Email: achi@venable.com 

101 California Street, Suite 3800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415.653.3750 

Facsimile: 415.653.3755 

Defendant PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION 

f/k/a JOINT JUICE, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

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-RS

Hon. Richard Seeborg 

PREMIER NUTRITION 

CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CLASS ACTION 

Action Filed: January 5th, 2017 

Jury Trial Demanded 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 24
-2- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

Defendant Premier Nutrition Corp. (“Premier”) answers the purported Class Action 

Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Mary Trudeau (“Plaintiff”) as follows. Unless otherwise 

expressly stated below, Premier denies each and every allegation of the Amended Complaint. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and to 

that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 1 requires an answer, 

Premier admits that it sells the “Joint Juice” products (hereinafter the “Products”) as a dietary 

supplement to help maintain and support joint well-being, as limited by the disclaimer on the 

Products’ labeling and Joint Juice website and television advertising that states that the Products 

“are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” To the extent Plaintiff refers 

to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product labeling, that material speaks for 

itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 1 not specifically admitted. 

2. Answering Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that it 

sells the Products as a dietary supplement to help maintain and support joint well-being, as 

limited by the disclaimer on the Products’ labeling and Joint Juice website that states that the 

Products “are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” To the extent the 

allegations in Paragraph 2 refer to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product 

labeling, that material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in 

Paragraph 2 not specifically admitted. 

3. Answering Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that it 

sells the Products as a dietary supplement to help maintain and support joint well-being, as 

limited by the disclaimer on the Products’ labeling and Joint Juice website that states that the 

Products “are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” To the extent the 

allegations in Paragraph 3 refer to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product 

labeling, that material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in 

Paragraph 3 not specifically admitted. 

4. Answering Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that it 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 24
-3- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

sells the Products as a dietary supplement to help maintain and support joint well-being, as 

limited by the disclaimer on the Products’ labeling and Joint Juice website that states that the 

Products “are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” To the extent the 

allegations in Paragraph 4 refer to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product 

labeling, that material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in 

Paragraph 4 not specifically admitted. 

5. Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and to 

that extent does not require an answer. Premier admits that it has sold over $100 million dollars 

of the Products in the past nine years. Premier denies each and every other allegation in 

Paragraph 5 not specifically admitted. 

6. Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and to 

that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 6 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 

7. Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and to 

that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 7 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and to 

that extent does not require an answer. 

9. Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and to 

that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 9 requires an answer, 

Premier admits that it has marketed, promoted, distributed, and sold the Products in California. 

10. Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 10 requires an answer, 

Premier admits that it conducts business and is headquartered in the District. 

11. Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 11 requires an answer, 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 3 of 24
-4- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

Premier admits that it is currently headquartered in Emeryville, California, which is in Alameda 

County. 

PARTIES 

Plaintiff 

12. Answering Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier lacks 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to where Ms. Trudeau resides, her state 

of citizenship, whether she in fact purchased the referenced Product, her belief regarding the 

Product or its related advertisements and labeling, and her reasons for allegedly purchasing the 

Product; on that basis, Premier denies these allegations in Paragraph 12. To the extent 

Paragraph 12 refers to the labels on the Product, the labels speak to themselves. Premier denies 

each and every other allegation in Paragraph 12. 

13. Answering Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier lacks 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to Ms. Trudeau’s beliefs regarding the 

Product or its related advertisement and labeling, and her reasons for allegedly purchasing the 

Product; on that basis, Premier denies these allegations in Paragraph 13. Premier denies each 

and every other allegation in Paragraph 13. 

Defendant 

14. Answering Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

it is a Delaware corporation. Premier admits that it is headquartered at 1222 67th Street, Suite 

210, Emeryville, California, 94608. Premier admits that it was previously headquartered at 5905 

Christie Avenue, Emeryville, California, 94608. Premier admits that, as of August 2013, it 

became a wholly owned subsidiary of Post Holdings, Inc. Premier admits that it is a 

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

and cookies. Premier admits that it has manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed, and/or 

sold the referenced Products throughout the United States, including its website. Premier admits 

that its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, research and 

development personnel, and customer service personnel have been located in California, 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 4 of 24
-5- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

however, not all marketing or sales employees have been located in California. Premier admits 

that its advertising agency was located in San Francisco. The term “retail distribution vendor” is 

vague and ambiguous, and therefore Premier lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit 

or deny the allegations regarding its “retail distribution vendor.” Premier denies each and every 

other allegation in Paragraph 14. 

15. Answering Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

Joint Juice was formerly a California corporation headquartered at 120 Howard Street, Suite 

600, San Francisco, California 94105. Premier admits that it was formerly known as Joint Juice, 

Inc. and under that name it manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed, and sold the 

Products throughout the United States. Premier admits that the date of the acquisition described 

in Paragraph 15 is accurate. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 15. 

16. Answering Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

the former CEO of Premier had worked out of San Francisco and that an advertising agency 

used by Joint Juice was located in San Francisco; however, not all marketing employees have 

been located in California. Premier admits that the current President of Premier works from 

Emeryville. Premier admits that the Products were originally developed by Dr. Kevin Stone at 

the Stone Clinic in San Francisco. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 

16. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

The Joint Juice Products

17. Answering Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier denies that 

it has distributed, marketed, and/or sold the Products since 1999. 

18. Answering Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

the Products have been sold by the third-party retailers listed in Paragraph 18 and through its 

website. 

19. Answering Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

the Products have been sold as drink mix packets, eight-ounce beverage bottles, and “Easy 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 5 of 24
-6- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

Shot” bottles. However, the Products are often sold at discounts and retail prices have varied. 

Premier denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 19 not specifically admitted. 

20. Answering Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

the Products contain 1,500 mg of glucosamine hydrochloride plus chondroitin. To the extent 

Paragraph 20 refers to the Product packaging, the packaging speaks for itself. 

21. Answering Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

the allegations in Paragraph 21; however, glucosamine used in Premier’s Products has also been 

derived from vegetarian sources. 

22. Answering Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

some other glucosamine products contain glucosamine sulfate. 

23. Answering Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits the 

allegations in Paragraph 23. 

24. Answering Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier denies that 

glucosamine hydrochloride is always less expensive than glucosamine sulfate. 

25. Answering Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, to the extent 

Paragraph 25 references a scientific study, the study speaks for itself. Premier lacks sufficient 

knowledge or information to admit or deny each and every other allegation in Paragraph 25. 

26. Answering Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits the 

allegations in Paragraph 26. 

Defendant’s False and Deceptive Advertising for the Joint Juice Products1

27. Answering Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

it sells the Products as a dietary supplement to help maintain and support joint well-being, as 

limited by the disclaimer on the Products’ labeling and Joint Juice website that states that the 

Products “are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” To the extent 

Plaintiff refers to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product labeling, that 

1

 Plaintiff’s allegation contains legal conclusions not requiring an answer. To the extent this 

statement requires an answer, Premier denies this allegation in its entirety. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 6 of 24
-7- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

material has varied over time and speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other 

allegation in Paragraph 27 not specifically admitted. 

28. Answering Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate are active ingredients in the Products. To the 

extent Plaintiff refers to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product labeling, 

that material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 28 

not specifically admitted. 

29. Answering Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

it sells the Products as a dietary supplement to help maintain and support joint well-being, as 

limited by the disclaimer on the Products’ labeling and Joint Juice website that states that the 

Products “are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” To the extent 

Plaintiff refers to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging and/or Product labeling, that 

material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 29 not 

specifically admitted. 

30. Answering Paragraph 30 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, to the extent the 

allegations in Paragraph 30 refer to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product 

labeling, that material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in 

Paragraph 30. 

31. Answering Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

it sells the Products as a dietary supplement to help maintain and support joint well-being, as 

limited by the disclaimer on the Products’ labeling and Joint Juice website that states that the 

Products “are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” To the extent the 

allegations in Paragraph 31 refer to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product 

labeling, that material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in 

Paragraph 31 not specifically admitted. 

32. Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 32 require 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 7 of 24
-8- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

an answer, and to the extent the allegations refer to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, 

and/or Product labeling, that material speaks for itself. To the extent the allegations in 

Paragraph 32 do not accurately reflect the above-mentioned material, Premier denies the 

allegations. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 32 not specifically 

admitted. 

33. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 33 refer to any of Premier’s 

advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product labeling, including on its website, that 

material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 33. 

34. Answering Paragraph 34 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

former professional football player Joe Montana was a spokesman for the Products. To the 

extent the allegations in Paragraph 34 refer to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, 

and/or Product labeling, including Joe Montana’s statements for Premier’s television 

commercial, that material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in 

Paragraph 34 not specifically admitted. 

35. Answering Paragraph 35 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

Products’ packaging features the Arthritis Foundation Logo. To the extent the allegations in 

Paragraph 35 refer to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product labeling, that 

material speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 35 not 

specifically admitted. 

36. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 36 refer to Premier’s packaging, 

advertising, marketing, and/or Product labeling, that material speaks for itself. Premier denies 

each and every other allegation in Paragraph 36 not specifically admitted. 

37. Answering Paragraph 37 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

the pictures included in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint appear to be accurate, partial 

representations of the current packaging of certain Products. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 8 of 24
-9- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

Scientific Studies Confirm That Joint Juice Is Not Effective And Defendant’s Health Benefits 

Message Is False And Deceptive2

38. Answering Paragraph 38 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 38. 

39. Answering Paragraph 39 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

Paragraph 39 accurately quotes the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Premier denies 

that all meta-analysis studies have concluded that glucosamine and chondroitin do nothing. 

Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 39 not specifically admitted. 

40. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 40 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 40 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

41. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 41 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 41 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

42. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 42 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 42 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 42 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

43. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 43 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 43 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

44. Answering Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not 

2

Plaintiff’s allegation contains legal conclusions not requiring an answer. To the extent this 

statement requires an answer, Premier denies this allegation in its entirety. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 9 of 24
-10- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

identify the studies on which she bases her allegations and accordingly, Premier lacks sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to those studies. 

45. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 45 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 45 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. Premier denies remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 45. 

46. Without admitting that the studies cited in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint are relevant to this action, those studies speak for themselves and, on that basis, 

Paragraph 46 does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 46 

do not accurately reflect those studies, Premier denies the allegations. 

47. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 47 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 47 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

48. Without admitting that the studies cited in Paragraph 48 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint are relevant to this action, those studies speak for themselves and, on that basis, 

Paragraph 48 does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 48 

do not accurately reflect the studies, Premier denies the allegations. 

49. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 49 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 49 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 49 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

50. Answering Paragraph 50 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not 

identify the studies on which she bases her allegations and accordingly, Premier lacks sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to those studies. 

51. Answering Paragraph 51 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 10 of 24
-11- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

identify the studies on which she bases her allegations and accordingly, Premier lacks sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to those studies. 

52. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 52 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 52 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 52 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

53. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 53 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 53 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 53 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

54. Answering Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier denies that 

there is uniform consensus that glucosamine and chondroitin do not work. Without admitting 

that the guidelines cited in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are relevant to this 

action, the guidelines speak for themselves and, to that extent, Paragraph 54 does not require an 

answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 54 do not accurately reflect the 

guidelines, Premier denies the allegations. Premier denies each and every other allegation not 

specifically admitted. 

55. Without admitting that the studies and guidelines cited in Paragraph 55 of 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are relevant to this action, the studies and guidelines speak for 

themselves and, on that basis, Paragraph 55 does not require an answer. However, to the extent 

the allegations in Paragraph 55 do not accurately reflect the studies and guidelines, Premier 

denies the allegations. 

56. Without admitting that the guidelines cited in Paragraph 56 of Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint are relevant to this action, the guidelines speak for themselves and, on that 

basis, Paragraph 56 does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in 

Paragraph 56 do not accurately reflect the guidelines, Premier denies the allegations. 

57. Without admitting that the guidelines cited in Paragraph 57 of Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 11 of 24
-12- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

Amended Complaint are relevant to this action, the guidelines speak for themselves and, on that 

basis, Paragraph 57 does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in 

Paragraph 57 do not accurately reflect the guidelines, Premier denies the allegations. 

58. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 58 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 58 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 58 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

59. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 59 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 59 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 59 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. Premier denies each and every other 

allegation in Paragraph 59. 

60. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 60 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and on that basis, Paragraph 60 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 60 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

61. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 61 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 61 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 61 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

62. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 62 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 62 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 62 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

63. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 63 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 63 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 63 do not 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 12 of 24
-13- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

64. Without admitting that the study cited in Paragraph 64 of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is relevant to this action, that study speaks for itself and, on that basis, Paragraph 64 

does not require an answer. However, to the extent the allegations in Paragraph 64 do not 

accurately reflect the study, Premier denies the allegations. 

The Impact of Defendant’s Wrongful Conduct3

65. Answering Paragraph 65 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

it sells the Products as a dietary supplement to help maintain and support joint well-being, as 

limited by the disclaimer on the Products’ labeling and Joint Juice website that states that the 

Products “are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” To the extent 

Plaintiff refers to Premier’s advertising, marketing, packaging, and/or Product labeling, that 

material has varied over time and speaks for itself. Premier denies each and every other 

allegation in Paragraph 65 not specifically admitted. 

66. Answering Paragraph 66 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Paragraph 66 

contains legal conclusions and to that extent does not require an answer. 

67. Answering Paragraph 67 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier denies each 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 67. 

68. Paragraph 68 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 68 requires an answer, 

Premier lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to whether Ms. Trudeau 

purchased the referenced Product, her belief regarding the Product or its related advertisement 

or labeling, and her reasons for allegedly purchasing the product; on that basis, Premier denies 

these allegations in Paragraph 68. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 

68. 

69. Answering Paragraph 69 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, retail prices for the 

3

Plaintiff’s allegation contains legal conclusions not requiring an answer. To the extent this 

statement requires an answer, Premier denies this allegation in its entirety. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 13 of 24
-14- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

Products have varied. Premier denies each and every other allegation in Paragraph 69. 

CLASS DEFINITION AND ALLEGATIONS 

70. Paragraph 70 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 70 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 70. 

71. Paragraph 71 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 71 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 71. 

72. Paragraph 72 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 72 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 72. 

73. Paragraph 73 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 73 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 73. 

74. Paragraph 74 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 74 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 74. 

75. Paragraph 75 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 75 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 75. 

76. Paragraph 76 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 76 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 76. 

77. Paragraph 77 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 77 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 77. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 14 of 24
-15- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

CLAIMS ALLEGED 

COUNT I 

Violation of Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act 

Mass. Gen. Laws 93A §1, et seq. 

78. Answering Paragraph 78 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier 

incorporates by reference and repleads all of the admissions, denials, and allegations contained 

in Paragraphs 1-77 above. 

79. Paragraph 79 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 79 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 79. 

80. Answering Paragraph 80 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier admits that 

Paragraph 80 contains an accurate partial quote of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, 

Section 2. 

81. Paragraph 81 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 81 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 81. 

82. Paragraph 82 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 82 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 82. 

83. Paragraph 83 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 83 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 83. 

84. Paragraph 84 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 84 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 84. 

85. Paragraph 85 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions, and 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 15 of 24
-16- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

to that extent does not require an answer. To the extent that Paragraph 85 requires an answer, 

Premier denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 85. 

86. Answering Paragraph 86 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier lacks 

information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Plaintiff sent a demand for relief letter as 

required of her by statute at least 30 days prior to filing Plaintiff’s complaint; on that basis, 

Premier denies the allegation in Paragraph 86. 

JURY DEMAND

Premier respectfully makes a demand for a trial by jury on claims and issues so triable. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Premier denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in her Request for 

Relief. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Without assuming the burden of proof on any matters that would otherwise rest with 

Plaintiff, and expressly denying any and all wrongdoing, Premier alleges the following 

additional reasons why Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief: 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Equitable Relief Unavailable) 

Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief because, if Plaintiff is entitled to a remedy, 

which Premier denies, Plaintiff has adequate legal remedies. No threat of immediate harm exists 

sufficient to support a grant of injunctive relief. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Failure to State a Claim)

The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against Premier on which relief can be 

granted. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(No Standing) 

Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under the statutes and legal theories invoked in her 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 16 of 24
-17- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

Amended Complaint because plaintiff lacks standing. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(No Deceptive Act or Practice) 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because there was no deceptive act or 

practice. Each and every representation and advertisement for the Products clearly and 

accurately portrayed the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities, standard, quality, 

and grade of the Products. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(No Intent to Deceive)

Plaintiff is precluded from recovery on her fraud- and misrepresentation-based claims 

because the misrepresentations and actions alleged by Plaintiff were not intended to deceive 

Plaintiff. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Not Likely to Mislead Public)

None of Premier’s acts, conduct, omissions, or statements alleged in the Amended 

Complaint were likely to mislead the public. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Lack of Justifiable Reliance) 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff knew, at all times, the 

characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities, standard, quality, and grade of the joint 

Juice Products and therefore could not have justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentation or 

omissions asserted in her Amended Complaint. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Performance of Duties)

Premier has fully performed any and all contractual, statutory, and other duties, and 

Plaintiff is therefore estopped from asserting any cause of action against Premier. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 17 of 24
-18- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

NINETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Substantial Compliance) 

Premier has substantially complied with the requirements of the law as they pertain to 

this lawsuit and such substantial compliance bars Plaintiff’s claims. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Preemption)

All or some of the alleged causes of action are preempted by federal law. 

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Safe Harbor)

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim, because Premier’s conduct was, and is, 

authorized by federal and state law. 

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Actions Pursuant to Local, State or Federal Authority) 

Premier is not liable for any acts or omissions undertaken by or at the direction of local, 

state or federal authority, including, without limitation, acts or omissions made in accordance 

with regulations, ordinances, statutes, and laws applicable at the time of the acts or omissions at 

issue. 

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Conduct Not Unfair)

The representations and advertising regarding the Products are not unfair. No 

representation or advertisement contains any false or misleading statement or promises any 

good not intended to be delivered. As such, the representations and advertising are not, and 

were not, unfair. 

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Conduct Not Unlawful) 

The representations and advertising regarding the Products are not unlawful because 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 18 of 24
-19- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

they are not, and were not, in violation of any law or regulation. 

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Cause in Fact)

No act or omission by Premier or by any person or entity for which Premier was 

responsible was the cause of any injury in fact, damages, or loss of money or property alleged 

by Plaintiff. 

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(No Proximate Cause)

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Premier has not engaged in any 

activity or conduct that is a proximate cause of any injury in fact, damages, or loss of money or 

property alleged by Plaintiff. 

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Superseding Causes)

Any and all violations alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint were the result of 

superseding or intervening causes arising from the acts or omissions of parties that Premier 

neither controlled nor had a legal right to control, and such alleged violations were not 

proximately or otherwise caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of Premier. 

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Failure to Mitigate)

If Plaintiff has suffered any damages or injury in fact, which Premier expressly denies, 

Premier alleges that Plaintiff’s recovery is barred by her failure to mitigate, reduce, or otherwise 

avoid damages or injuries. 

NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Aggravation of Harm)

To the extent any harm exists, Premier is informed and believes and, on that basis, 

alleges that Plaintiff’s actions have aggravated such harm, and thus, any recovery from 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for such harm should be barred or reduced accordingly. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 19 of 24
-20- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Equitable Estoppel and Equitable Indemnity) 

Based on Plaintiff’s conduct, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of equitable 

estoppel and equitable indemnity. 

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel) 

All or some of Plaintiff’s alleged claims and issues are barred by prior judgment by the 

doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. 

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Waiver)

Based on Plaintiff’s conduct, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver. 

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Statute of Limitations) 

Plaintiff’s claims and damages are barred, reduced, and/or limited by the applicable 

statutes of limitations. 

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Laches)

By virtue of Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in commencing this action, which duly has 

caused prejudice to Premier, the Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action 

asserted therein are barred by the doctrine of laches. 

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands)

The Amended Complaint and each and every purported claim against Premier is barred 

by the doctrine of unclean hands in that Plaintiff’s own actions have caused the damages 

Plaintiff may have incurred, if any. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 20 of 24
-21- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(No Actual Injury) 

Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under the legal theories invoked in the Amended 

Complaint because Plaintiff suffered no actual injury and suffered no damages. 

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Not Maintainable As Class Action)

Premier alleges that this action is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff’s claims 

are not maintainable as a class action. 

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Unjust Enrichment)

Any award to the Plaintiff in this action would constitute unjust enrichment. 

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Attorneys’ Fees Improper) 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim or set forth facts sufficient to 

support a claim for attorneys’ fees. 

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Uncertainty)

The Amended Complaint and the cause of action therein presented are vague, 

ambiguous, and uncertain. Premier reserves the right to add additional defenses as the factual 

bases for each of Plaintiff’s claims and allegations becomes known. 

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Puffing)

Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that any alleged deceptive statements constitute 

puffery, and no reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position could have reasonably relied on or 

misunderstood Premier’s statements. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 21 of 24
-22- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Mootness)

Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction to the extent Premier has already ceased the 

allegedly unlawful conduct. 

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Equities in Favor of Defendants)

Plaintiff is barred from recovering the relief sought in the Amended Complaint because 

the equities weigh in favor of Premier. 

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Violation of Right to Free Speech) 

To the extent Plaintiff purports to seek equitable relief to mandate the specific content of 

Premier’s advertising or the content of the Products labels, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 

violates Premier’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States 

Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution, Part I, Article XVI. 

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Set-off)

Any recovery by plaintiff should be offset and diminished by the value to the general 

public of the use of the Products. 

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Punitive Damages Are Not Available)

Plaintiff’s claims do not permit the recovery of punitive damages. 

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

 (Reservation of Additional Defenses)

Premier hereby reserves the right to amend its answer to raise additional affirmative 

defenses as they become available or apparent to it through discovery in this matter or 

otherwise. 

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 22 of 24
-23- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Premier prays for 

judgment as follows: 

1. That Plaintiff takes nothing for her Amended Complaint and that the Amended 

Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 

2. That the request for injunctive relief be denied; 

3. That Premier be awarded its costs of suit; 

4. That the request for attorneys’ fees and costs by Plaintiff and her counsel be 

denied; and, 

5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: May 14, 2019 

VENABLE LLP

ANGEL A. GARGANTA (163957) 

JESSICA L. GRANT (178138) 

AMIT RANA (291921) 

YUHAN CHI (324072) 

By: /s/ Angel A. Garganta

ANGEL A. GARGANTA 

101 California Street, Suite 3800

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415/653-3750 

415/653-3755 (fax) 

aagarganta@venable.com 

jgrant@venable.com 

arana@venable.com 

achi@venable.com

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 23 of 24
-24- 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00054-RS 

PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF MARY TRUDEAU’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 14th day of May, 2019 the 

foregoing document was served on all counsel of record who have consented to 

electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Any other counsel of record 

who have not registered as an ECF user will be served by facsimile transmission or 

first class mail. 

/s/ Angel A. Garganta

Angel A. Garganta

Case 3:17-cv-00054-RS Document 44 Filed 05/14/19 Page 24 of 24