Armstrong, FRS Products
March 2014: The named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the February 2014 dismissal order. (Case No. 14-55417, 9th Cir.) Later in March, a federal judge dismissed with prejudice the district court case after the plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint. The named plaintiff then filed a second Notice of Appeal regarding the March 2014 dismissal order. (Case No. 14-55492, 9th Cir.)
February 2014: A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against Armstrong finding, among other things, that the marketing claims at issue were “non-actionable puffery” (i.e., claims that no reasonable consumer would take at face value) and unquantifiable. The dismissal was without prejudice plaintiffs have until March 18, 2014 to fix the deficiencies and file an amended complaint.
February 2013: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Lance Armstrong in February 2013 claiming that the seven time Tour de France winner duped consumers into buying his endorsed sports supplement — FRS — by misleadingly advertising the supplement as his “secret weapon” to his cycling success. (Robert Martin v. FRS Co., Oak Investment Ptnrs., and Lance Armstrong, Case. No. 2:13-cv-01456, C.D. Cal.)
When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.
When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.