Move Free Glucosamine

November 3

The Court issues its official Order granting final approval of the settlement.

October 30

The Court holds a final fairness hearing and grants final approval of the settlement agreement, but lowers the amount of attorney’s fees the plaintiffs counsel will receive from 33% of the settlement fund to 25% of the fund, as advocated by TINA.org and AARP.

October 13

TINA.org and AARP file a reply brief.

October 8

Plaintiffs and defendants file responses to objections to the proposed settlement agreement.

May 8

TINA.org and AARP file a supplemental brief opposing the parties’ proposed revisions to the settlement agreement.

April 27

One month after the Court grants TINA.org’s Motion for Leave, the parties file a joint motion to modify the proposed settlement agreement.  Among the minor changes made to the agreement, the parties have agreed to ban the same six specific phrases as before (“repair joints,” “repair cartilage,” “rebuild joints,” “rebuild cartilage,” “rejuvenate joints,” or “rejuvenate cartilage”) from the labeling and marketing of the supplements, but are now also banning “any version of those statements using variations of the proscribed terms (e.g., ‘repairs,’ ‘rebuilding,’ ‘rejuvenation,’ etc.).”  The injunctive relief still does not expand to synonymous language and still expires after two years.

March 26

The Court grants TINA.org’s and AARP’s Motion for Leave to file their opposition to the proposed settlement, and denies plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw.

March 11

TINA.org and AARP file a brief as amici curiae opposing the proposed settlement reached by the parties, as well as a Motion for Leave to file the brief.

March 2

Plaintiffs reply to defendants’ objection.

February 23

Defendants object to plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw.

February 6

In anticipation of TINA.org’s objection, plaintiffs try to withdraw from proposed settlement agreement.

March 25

Plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement.

Plaintiffs file a class-action complaint against Schiff Nutrition International, which was later amended.

* The above events do not represent the entire procedural history of the case, but rather only highlights some key events pertaining to TINA.org’s involvement in the case.