Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 17 Filed 02/26/21 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`
`
`
`TIFFANY CARLSON, on behalf of herself and all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`TAMMY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., an Indiana
`Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`STEPHANIE ROMERO, DAVID STARNES,
`STACI FOOTE, ASHLEY LILL, and CRYSTAL
`FABELA, individually and on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-00007-RLY-MPB
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-00014-RLY-MPB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 17 Filed 02/26/21 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 63
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-00022-RLY-MPB
`
`
`
`Case No.: 1:21-cv-00360-JPH-TAB
`
`
`
`
`HARVEY E. WILLIAMS, OWEN WOODALL,
`VOLLIE GRIFFIN, and MEL LAFEBRE, on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`CHARLES FOSTER, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., an Indiana
`Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
`
`Plaintiffs Tiffany Carlson, Tammy Johnson, Stephanie Romero, David Starnes, Staci Foote,
`
`Ashley Lill, Crystal Fabela, Harvey Williams, Owen Woodall, Vollie Griffin, Mel Labefre, and Charles
`
`Foster (“Plaintiffs”) filed the following five separate proposed class actions against Defendant
`
`Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. (“Midwestern”) in this District:
`
`1. Carlson v. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:21-CV-00007-RLY-MPB;
`
`2. Johnson v. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB;
`
`3. Romero, et al. v. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00014-RLY-MPB;
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 17 Filed 02/26/21 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 64
`
`
`
`4. Williams, et al. v. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00022-RLY-MPB;
`
`and
`
`5. Foster, et al. v. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00360-PJH-TAB.
`
`(collectively, the “Actions”).
`
`Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel of record and pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure and Local Rule 42-1, hereby jointly move for an order consolidating the Actions.
`
`Under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may consolidate actions that
`
`“involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. A decision to grant or deny
`
`consolidation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Star Insurance Company v. Risk Marketing Group,
`
`Inc., 561 F.3d 656, 660 (7th Cir.2009); King v. Gen. Elec. Co., 960 F.2d 617, 626 (7th Cir.1992).
`
`“Consolidation is preferred if it will promote judicial economy and efficiency without prejudice
`
`to the parties.” See Adams v. Northern Public Service Co., 2012 WL 23575324, at *1 (N.D. Ind. June
`
`22, 2012). Courts should consider “whether the risks of prejudice and possible confusion were
`
`overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on
`
`the parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, and the length of time
`
`required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned.” Id.
`
`(citing Arnold v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir.1982); Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d
`
`197, 204 (7th Cir. 1970); Van Patten v. Wright, 2009 WL 1886010, *2 (E.D. Wis. 2009); Back v. Carter,
`
`933 F. Supp. 738, 748 (N.D. Ind. 1996)).
`
`
`
`The Actions should be consolidated. First, all of the Actions are against the same defendant,
`
`Midwestern; arise out of the recalls of Midwestern’s pet food announced in December 2020 and January
`
`2021; involve the same pet food products; and involve common questions of fact, such as, among other
`
`things, whether Midwestern’s pet food products were advertised as providing “targeted nutrition to
`
`pets,” “100% guaranteed taste and nutrition,” and “complete and balanced nutrition,” yet were at risk of
`
`contamination with excessive levels Aflatoxin, which Plaintiffs allege could and did cause illness and
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 17 Filed 02/26/21 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 65
`
`
`
`death in pets. Additionally, the Actions involve common questions of law, such as whether Midwestern
`
`violated state consumer protection statutes and has been unjustly enriched, among other things. Finally,
`
`all the Actions are brought on behalf of persons in the United States who purchased Midwestern’s pet
`
`food products.
`
`Consolidation of the Actions will likewise serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
`
`promote the just and efficient course of this litigation. Consolidation will eliminate duplicative
`
`discovery and prevent inconsistent rulings, including on the issues of whether Midwestern knowingly
`
`and/or recklessly sold contaminated pet foods, whether Midwestern failed to implement appropriate and
`
`required testing, and/or whether Midwestern engaged in false and deceptive advertising.
`
`Consolidation will also conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary in
`
`that, subject to the Court’s approval, Plaintiffs intend to file a consolidated complaint so that
`
`Midwestern must only respond to one complaint and defend one unified action. That means that if
`
`Midwestern wishes to file a motion to dismiss, the Court will decide only one. Finally, there will not be
`
`any delay or prejudice resulting from consolidation.
`
`Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Actions are meeting and conferring regarding a proposal
`
`for Interim Counsel and hope to reach an agreement to present to the Court. Plaintiffs’ counsel propose
`
`that the Court set a deadline for the filing of an Interim Counsel application pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`23(g) that is within 21 days from the date the Court enters an order consolidating the Actions.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court consolidate the actions, direct that the
`
`filings in each matter carry the case number of the Carlson Action and direct that all future filings shall
`
`bear the following caption:
`
`In re: Midwestern Pet Foods Marketing, Sales
`Practices and Product Liability Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-00007-RLY-MPB
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 17 Filed 02/26/21 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 66
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the following schedule set forth in
`
`the accompanying [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to Consolidate Cases:
`
`(1) Deadline to file application(s) for appointment of Interim Counsel within 21 days of the
`
`entry of an order granting consolidation of the Actions; and
`
`(2) Deadline for the filing of a Consolidated Complaint: 60 days after the appointment of
`
`Interim Counsel.
`
`Prior to this filing of this motion, Plaintiffs reached out to counsel for Midwestern, Mr. Justin
`
`Penn, and notified him of this anticipated motion.
`
`Dated: February 26, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`\s\ Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
`Jeffrey S. Goldenberg (pro hac vice)
`GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
`4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
`Cincinnati, OH 45242
`Tel: 513-345-8297
`Fax: 513-345-8294
`jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
`
`Gary M. Klinger
`Gary E. Mason (pro hac vice)
`MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
`5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW | Ste 305
`Washington, DC 20016
`Tel: 202-640-1168
`Fax: 202-429-2294
`gklinger@masonllp.com
`gmason@masonllp.com
`
`Melissa R. Emert (pro hac vice)
`Gary S. Graifman (pro hac vice)
`KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
`GRAIFMAN, P.C.
`747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
`Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
`Telephone: 845-356-2570
`Fax: 845-356-4335
`memert@kgglaw.com
`ggraifman@kgglaw.com
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 17 Filed 02/26/21 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 67
`
`
`
`Charles E. Schaffer (pro hac vice)
`LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
`510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
`Philadelphia, PA 19106
`Tel: 215-592-1500
`Fax: 215-592-4663
`cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
`
`Jeffrey W. Ahlers
`KAHN, DEES, DONOVAN & KAHN, LLP
`P.O. Box 3646
`Evansville, IN 47735
`Tel: 812-423-3183
`Fax: 812-423-3841
`jahlers@kddk.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Tiffany Carlson
`
`/s/ John P. Young________________
`John P. Young, #14099-49
`YOUNG & YOUNG
`128 N. Delaware St., 3rd Floor
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`Telephone: (317) 639-5161
`Facsimile: (317) 639-4978
`john@youngandyoungin.com
`
`Rosemary M. Rivas (pro hac vice)
`Mark Troutman (pro hac vice forthcoming)
` David Stein (pro hac vice)
`GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
`505 14th Street, Suite 110
`Oakland, California 94612
`Telephone: (510) 350-9700
`Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Harvey Williams, Owen
`Woodall, Vollie Griffin, and Mel Labefre
`
`
`/s/ Lynn A. Toops
`Lynn A. Toops
`Lisa M. La Fornara
`COHEN & MALAD, LLP
`One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`Telephone: (317) 636-6481
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 17 Filed 02/26/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
`llafornara@cohenandmalad.com
`
`Jessica J. Sleater
`(pro hac vice application to be submitted)
`jessica@andersensleater.com
`ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC
`1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
`New York, New York 10001
`Telephone: (646) 599-9848
`
`Gretchen Elsner
`(pro hac vice application to be submitted)
`Gretchen@ElsnerLaw.org
`ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC
`314 South Guadalupe Street
`Santa Fe, NM 87501
`Telephone: (505) 303-0980
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Stephanie Romero, David
`Starnes, Staci Foote, Ashley Lill and Crystal Fabela
`
`
`
`/s/ Joseph G. Sauder
`Joseph G. Sauder
`Lori G. Kier
`SAUDER SCHELKOPF, LLC
`1109 Lancaster Avenue
`Berwyn, PA 19312
`Phone: 888.711.9975
`Facsimile: 610.421.1326
`Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
`Email: lgk@sstriallawyers.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Tammy
`Johnson
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Blake P. Holler
`Blake P. Holler, Atty. No. 30676-84
`Scott S. Morrison, Atty. No. 11633-49
`KRIEG DEVAULT LLP
`12800 N. Meridian Street, Suite 300
`Carmel, IN 46032
`Phone: (317) 566-1110
`Facsimile: (317) 636-1507
`bholler@kdlegal.com
`smorrisson@kdlegal.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 17 Filed 02/26/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 69
`
`Bruce E. Newman
`BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
`747 Stafford Avenue
`Bristol, CT 06010
`Phone: (860) 583-5200
`Facsimile: (860) 589-5790
`bnewman@bpslawyers.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Charles Foster
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 17 Filed 02/26/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 70
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on February 26, 2021, a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
`
`CERTFICIATE OF SERVICE
`
`TO CONSOLIDATE was filed electronically. Service of this filing will be made on all ECF-registered
`
`counsel by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the
`
`court’s system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\s\ Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`