`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 19 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 88
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`
`
`In re: Midwestern Pet Foods Marketing, Sales
`
`Practices and Product Liability Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-00007-RLY-MPB
`
`ORDER ON 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, Charles Foster, and Shanda Marshall (“Plaintiffs”) filed six separate proposed class
`
`actions against Defendant Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. (“Midwestern”) in this District and
`
`have requested consolidation pursuant to Local Rule 42-1. Defendant does not oppose the
`
`motion. The actions are:
`
`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;
`
`4. Williams, et al. v. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00022-
`RLY-MPB;
`
`5. Foster, et al. v. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00360-
`JPH-TAB; and
`
`6. Marshall v. Midwesern Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00050-
`
`RLY-MPB. (collectively, the “Actions”).
`
`Under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may consolidate actions
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 19 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 89
`
`that “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. “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)).
`
`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 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 19 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 90
`
`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.
`
`Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases (Docket No. 17) is GRANTED. The Clerk is
`
`DIRECTED to consolidate Cause Nos. 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB, 3:21-cv-00014-RLY-
`
`MPB, 3:21-cv-00022-RLY-MPB, 1:21-cv-00360-JPH-TAB, and 3:21-cv-00050-RLY-MPB
`
`("the consolidated actions") into Cause No. 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB and close the other
`
`actions. The Clerk is FURTHER DIRECTED to docket this entry in the consolidated actions
`
`prior to their closure. No final judgment will issue in the consolidated actions.
`
`The Court directs that all future filings be made in 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB and
`
`directs that all future filings shall bear the following caption:
`
`
`In re: Midwestern Pet Foods Marketing, Sales
`Practices and Product Liability Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-00007-RLY-MPB
`
`The Court also enters the following schedule:
`
`(1) The deadline to file an application(s) for the appointment of Interim Counsel by
`
`Monday, April 19, 2021 of entry of this Order; and
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB Document 19 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 91
`
`(2) The deadline for the filing of a consolidated complaint is within 60 days of the
`
`entry of an order appointing Interim Counsel.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: 3/29/2021
`
`Distribution List:
`
`To all registered counsel by CM/ECF
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`