Legal Opinion

In re Testofen Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided April 1, 2015No. MDL No. 2612PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair.

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in one action in the Central District of California {Ryan) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of Massachusetts.1 This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two districts, as listed on Schedule A. The actions involve marketing practices concerning nu*1372tritional supplements made with Testofen, a fenugreek seed extract, and in particular, defendants’ representation that Testofen is clinically proven to boost free testosterone levels.

Plaintiffs in the District of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re Eli Lilly & Co.(cephalexin Monohydrate)United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1978
  2. In Re Transocean Ltd. Securities LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2010
  3. In re Adderall XR (amphetamine/dextroamphetamine) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2013

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. CHAIRES v. NOVO NORDISK INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API