C.D. Cal. · No. 2:26-cv-10366
Full docket on CourtListener ↗
No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).
| Matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BA SPORTS NUTRITION, LLCsource ↗ filed by Kuzyk Law LLP · No. 2:26-cv-10366 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $190M–$740M ▾No directly on-point false advertising rulings in the comparable set; closest analogues are sports-nutrition jury verdicts (VPX/Vital Pharmaceuticals, Papaya) showing juries award large sums when advertising claims succeed at trial. Comparable case law here is mostly unrelated (data breach, arbitration, class cert) so predictive value is limited. Comparable settlements $190M–$740M median $299.50M · n=10 DiDi Global Inc. $740M · Merck & Co. Inc. a $688M · Western Union $586M Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · VPX, Inc. $293M Key precedent: VPX Sports/Vital Pharmaceuticals $293M jury verdicts (C.D. Cal.) are the closest analog — same industry, same court, false-advertising theory against a sports-nutrition brand. Main risk: Dismissal on Rule 9(b)/reasonable-consumer standard, a common failure point for UCL/FAL/CLRA claims in C.D. Cal. absent plausible deception allegations. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1M–$70M Comparable rulings/settlements are largely unrelated theories/industries; class size and per-member figures are rough estimates absent direct data, so range is wide and low-confidence. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 9 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | C.D. Cal. | 2026-09-14 | $190M–$740M comparable settlements |