`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`DOUGLAS J REECE, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA GROUP, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 20-cv-02345-WHO
`
`Case Nos. 20-cv-2512, 20-cv-2597, 20-cv-
`2729, 20-cv-2729, 20-cv-2778, 20-cv-2891,
`20-cv-2999
`
`ORDER RELATING CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`Currently before me are a number of sua sponte referrals for determinations of relatedness
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and motions to relate filed in this series of cases asserting defendants Juul Labs, Inc., (“JLI”) and
`
`Altria Group, Inc., (“Altria”) entered into anticompetitive agreements. See Reece v. Altria Group,
`
`Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO; Blomquist v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-
`
`cv-2512-VC; Martinez v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02597-JSW; Deadwyler v.
`
`Altria Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02729-WHO; Stiles v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Case
`
`No. 3:20-cv-02779-WHO; Licari v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02778-WHO; and
`
`Flannery v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02891-DMR. An additional case was
`
`recently filed, Larimore et al v. Altria Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02999-KW, raising
`
`similar claims based on the same alleged antitrust conduct. Generally, plaintiffs and defendants
`
`in these antitrust cases agree that the cases are related under Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) and agree
`
`that the cases should be related to the lowest numbered antitrust case, Reece v. Altria Group, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 20-cv-2345. These cases are certainly related to the lowest numbered Reece action.
`
`Generally, plaintiffs and defendants in the antitrust cases also agree that these antitrust
`
`cases should not be consolidated with or be member cases in MDL No. 19-md-2913, In Re: Juul
`
`Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (“Juul MDL”). That
`
`issue is more complex and is currently under consideration by me. See MDL No. 19-md-2913,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02345-WHO Document 27 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 421.
`
`For purposes of efficiency and until the issue of whether the Juul MDL will encompass
`
`antitrust claims is resolved, I find that each of the antitrust cases identified above should be related
`
`to the lowest numbered Reece action. This determination is without prejudice to a future
`
`determination that these antitrust cases should be related to the Juul MDL for purposes of
`
`coordination with the MDL or consolidation with the MDL as member cases.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 7, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William H. Orrick
`United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
