top of page


Right of Assembly is my personal blog. All opinions are my own. You can read more about me here.


I am a ChromaDex shareholder, and an affiliate marketer. As a result, I will sometimes mention or recommend products that I endorse. I may earn a small commission from qualifying purchases if you were referred directly from this site and completed a purchase. [Thank you!] You can read more about our advertising, privacy, and data collection policies here. 


This site uses cookies. Cookies are not required for site functionality. You can read more about how to opt-out of cookies here.

  • Writer's pictureShelly Albaum

ChromaDex Asks to File Fifth Amended Complaint in California

ChromaDex has asked to file a Fifth Amended Complaint in California. You can read the request here:

The motion is unopposed.

The proposed Fifth Amended Complaint (PFAC) includes new claims against Elysium, and claims against a new defendant: Mark Morris, an individual.

The proposed claims against Mr. Morris are misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of confidentiality agreements, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The proposed new claims against Elysium are aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and breach of Elysium's confidentiality obligations owed to ChromaDex.

Among the reasons ChromaDex's offers for its PFAC, which is based on newly discovered information produced by Elysium, are

(1) the fact that neither ChromaDex nor Elysium has yet taken a deposition or exchanged an expert report,

(2) ChromaDex was unaware of the full extent of Mr. Morris's involvement until ChromaDex was permitted to view and consider documents recently produced and de-designated by Elysium, and thus was unable to bring the claims against Mr. Morris in the PFAC until now,

(3) The material ChromaDex relies on was mostly produced last May, but Elysium did not agree to remove the "Attorneys Eyes Only" designation until after ChromaDex threatened another Motion to Compel, and

(4) ChromaDex and Elysium are jointly seeking another extension of the case deadlines, including discovery, to eliminate any potential lingering prejudice to either defendant. [As we shall see in another post, the proposed trial would be around July 9, 2019.]

My guess is that approval will be granted, and the trial will be postponed to July.

98 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page