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

No Trial Date in CA Yet -- Wait for It

Two weeks ago Judge Carney directed the parties to propose a trial date for the California litigation. We have waited impatiently for two weeks to see the parties Joint Report. Now we have it.

It was weird that Rob Fried didn't mention the possibility of a trial date in California on today's call, when we knew that the joint report was imminently to be filed.

So now we know why.

The parties are wondering why Judge Carney is asking for a trial date when ChromaDex wants a jury trial, and Judge Carney's courthouse is not yet doing jury trials due to COVID. ChromaDex says, Are you offering us a bench trial? Because we don't want that. Alternately, do you know when the federal courthouse in Santa Ana is going to be holding jury trials? If so, clue us in.

Here is the actual document:

The parties, of course, did not speak as informally as that:

"The parties have met and conferred regarding scheduling this matter for trial, considering:

(a) The logistical challenges and health concerns raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the challenges of cross-country travel given that both Defendants and their counsel are located in New York and Boston;

(b) Central District of California General Order 20-12, pursuant to which the Court is not currently holding jury trials and there is no indication with the Court will enter "Phase 3" resumption of jury trials; and

(c) ChromaDex's right to a jury trial on its claims.

Based on the foregoing, the parties understand that it is not possible at this time to propose a date with any certainty that the trial would be able to go forward on that date.

The parties therefore propose that, as soon as it is announced that the Court's Sothern Division will be entering Phase 3 (resumption of jury trials), the parties will submit a proposed trial date and pre-trial schedule to the Court that complies with Local Rules...

In the alternative, the parties respectfully request guidance as to when the Court anticipates the Southern Division will enter Phase 3, after which the parties will meet and confer about the earliest possible date for the jury trial and submit it and a proposed pre-trial schedule to the Court..."

We'll see what Judge Carney says.

74 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page