NEW YORK, Aug. 28, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against NuVasive, Inc. ("NuVasive" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NUVA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of California, and docketed under 13-cv-02005-W-WMC, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of NuVasive between October 22, 2008 and July 30, 2013 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased NuVasive securities during the Class Period, you have until October 28, 2013 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at email@example.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. NuVasive designs, develops, and markets products for the surgical treatment of spine disorders. The Company's products include Maximum Access Surgery ("MAS") and Fusion products. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid in violation of federal and state laws and regulations; (2) the Company's internal compliance program was unable to detect and report False Claims Act and other violations; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.