Legal Opinion

Yeldo v. MusclePharm Corp.

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided November 16, 2017No. Case No. 17–11011PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GEORGE CARAM STEEH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Nick Yeldo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges that defendant MusclePharm Corp. utilizes misleading marketing practices to promote its Glutamine product. This matter is presently before the Court on defendant's request for judicial notice, (Doc. 13) and motion to dismiss, (Doc. 12). Oral argument was held on November 14, 2017. For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. Background

Defendant manufactures and sells dietary supplements and sports nutrition…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Aleisa v. Gojo Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2021
  2. Barclay v. iFit Health & Fitness Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2020
  3. Fishon v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2020
  4. Howard Goldfaden v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary of, et al.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2026
  5. Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC v. Howell TownshipDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API