throbber
Case NYE/1:21-cv-01287 Document 28 Filed 04/13/21 Page 1 of 8
`
`BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT
`LITIGATION
`__________________________________________
`
`:
`:
`IN RE: BABY FOOD MARKETING, SALES
`:
`PRACTICES AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
`:
`LITIGATION
`__________________________________________:
`
`MDL No. 2997
`
`PLAINTIFFS ERIK LAWRENCE, RACHEL M. FRANTZ, AND MARIE MEZILE’S
`INTERESTED PARTY RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CENTRALIZE
`THE BABY FOOD CASES IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`Plaintiffs Erik Lawrence, Rachel M. Frantz, and Marie Mezile respectfully submit their
`
`interested party response in support of the centralization motion filed by plaintiffs Lori-Anne
`
`Albano, Myjorie Philippe, Rebecca Telaro, and Alyssa Rose on March 8, 2020. (Doc. No.1)1
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The sixty-plus baby food lawsuits allege the same thing—that defendants knew their
`
`baby food contained unsafe amounts of heavy metals, but failed to disclose this fact to people
`
`purchasing the products to feed their babies and infants. A contaminated baby food MDL is
`
`warranted because the §1407 requirements are satisfied and fundamental issues necessary to
`
`resolve the claims will not vary among the defendants or the plaintiffs.
`
`ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF CENTRALIZATION
`
`The requirements for transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1407 are met here because: 1) there are
`
`civil actions pending in different districts that have one or more common questions of fact; 2)
`
`centralization will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and 3) centralization will
`
`promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions.
`
`1 Plaintiffs filed Erik Lawrence, et al. v. Hain Celestial Group, et al., Case 1:21-cv-01287
`(E.D.N.Y.).
`
`{00218188 }
`
`

`

`Case NYE/1:21-cv-01287 Document 28 Filed 04/13/21 Page 2 of 8
`
`The most efficient way to handle the baby food cases—for the defendants, the plaintiffs,
`
`and the judicial system—is to create one MDL managed by a single judge. This approach
`
`worked very well in the Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2311, where the Panel
`
`turned what could have been scores of separate cases brought by purchasers at different levels of
`
`the distribution chain against different parts manufacturers in districts scattered across the
`
`country into a unitary MDL capably managed by Judge Battani.2
`
`The genesis of MDL No. 2311 occurred in September 2011, when the Department of
`
`Justice announced that a motor vehicle parts manufacturer (Furukawa) had agreed to plead guilty
`
`to conspiring to fix prices of wire harnesses. Civil antitrust cases were filed against Furukawa
`
`and other wire harness manufacturers by direct and indirect purchasers. Motions to centralize
`
`the actions were filed with the Panel. Creation of an MDL in the Eastern District of Michigan
`
`was advocated by most of the parties in the cases. The Panel agreed, and centralized the wire
`
`harness cases in the Eastern District of Michigan. In re Automotive Wire Harness Sys. Antitrust
`
`Litig., MDL No. 2311, 2012 WL 432596 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 7, 2012).
`
`Soon after Furukawa’s guilty plea, other parts suppliers began to plead guilty to fixing
`
`prices of other motor vehicle parts. These guilty pleas led to additional civil cases being filed by
`
`purchasers of these products.3 Motions to create separate MDL dockets for the cases asserting
`
`antitrust (and consumer protection) claims against producers of these parts were then filed with
`
`the Panel.
`
`On May 31, 2012, the Panel held a hearing on the motions to create multidistrict
`
`litigation dockets for three new parts cases. The Panel decided that the cases involving these
`
`2 MDL No. 2311 was reassigned to Judge Cox because Judge Battani had to step away from her
`duties and eventually retire for health reasons.
`3 Many additional guilty pleas and civil cases with respect to other parts were to come.
`2
`
`{00218188 }
`
`

`

`Case NYE/1:21-cv-01287 Document 28 Filed 04/13/21 Page 3 of 8
`
`products should be transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan and Judge Battani, but
`
`declined the request to create three new MDLs. In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litig., 867 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 1349, 1350-51 (J.P.M.L. June 12, 2012).
`
`The Panel’s reluctance to create multiple MDL dockets was not overcome by arguments
`
`“that the cases in each MDL involve a separate alleged conspiracy that will involve facts, time
`
`frames, parties and witnesses specific to that alleged conspiracy.” Id. The Panel concluded that
`
`“including all actions in MDL No. 2311 will lead to the most efficient handling of these cases.”
`
`Id.4
`
`Part of what drove the Panel’s decision was that the government was investigating
`
`anticompetitive conduct in one industry, even though it was composed of scores of suppliers
`
`producing thousands of parts. The final paragraph of the Panel’s June 12, 2012 Transfer Order
`
`renaming the “Wire Harness Systems Antitrust Litigation” as “In re Automotive Parts Antitrust
`
`Litigation” clearly expressed the Panel’s intent to not just include wire harness products,
`
`instrument panel cluster, fuel sender, and heater control panel cases with some overlapping
`
`defendants under an umbrella automotive parts MDL, but also any future cases involving
`
`different automotive parts and parties. The Panel’s decision to create one MDL was designed to
`
`and in fact achieved excellent results—a just and efficient resolution of multiple cases filed in
`
`different districts that revolved around widespread collusion in the automotive parts industry.
`
`The rationale employed by the Panel in automotive parts is equally applicable here.
`
`The practices of an entire industry were also under scrutiny in In re Factor VIII or IX
`
`Concentrate Blood Prods. Prod. Liability Litig., MDL No. 986, 853 F. Supp. 454 (J.P.M.L. Dec.
`
`4 The Panel noted that the transferee court had tools at its disposal to most efficiently manage
`cases involving different parts within the framework of MDL No. 2311. In re Automotive Parts
`Antitrust Litig., 867 F. Supp. 2d at 1351.
`
`{00218188 }
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case NYE/1:21-cv-01287 Document 28 Filed 04/13/21 Page 4 of 8
`
`7, 1993) (“Factor Concentrate”). Factor concentrates were products, made from human blood
`
`plasma, used by persons with hemophilia to control internal bleeding. The plasma used to make
`
`factor concentrates eventually became contaminated with the human immunodeficiency virus
`
`(“HIV”). Factor concentrates made with contaminated plasma then became tainted with HIV.
`
`Users of factor concentrates were infected with HIV from use of contaminated factor
`
`concentrates.
`
`Hemophiliacs infected with HIV sued the four major factor concentrate producers in
`
`several districts. An MDL motion was granted, and the factor concentrate cases were centralized
`
`in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Grady. The Panel identified the following
`
`common factual questions as supporting §1407 centralization: 1) the adequacy of the defendants’
`
`testing of plasma used to make factor concentrates for the presence of HIV or other viruses; 2)
`
`the adequacy of the defendants’ screening of high-risk plasma donors; and 3) the adequacy of the
`
`defendants’ warnings to hemophiliacs and their physicians of the dangers of HIV transmission
`
`through use of factor concentrates. Id. at 455. Over the objections of the defendants, the Panel
`
`concluded that centralization of all the factor concentrate cases in one district was necessary to
`
`eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and to conserve the
`
`resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Id. Factor Concentrates, where
`
`plaintiffs alleged that the entire industry failed to properly test, screen, or warn, is analogous to
`
`the allegations about the conduct of the baby food defendants.
`
`Litigation against opiate manufacturers and distributors was centralized in the Northern
`
`District of Ohio. In re National Prescription Opiate Litig., MDL No. 2804, 290 F. Supp. 3d
`
`1375 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 5, 2017). The Panel decided that a single MDL was warranted even though
`
`[t]he parties opposing transfer stress the uniqueness of the claims they
`bring (or the claims that are brought against them), and they argue that
`
`{00218188 }
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case NYE/1:21-cv-01287 Document 28 Filed 04/13/21 Page 5 of 8
`
`distributors will lead to inefficiencies that could slow the progress of
`all cases. While we appreciate these arguments, we are not persuaded
`by them. All of the actions can be expected to implicate common fact
`questions as to the allegedly improper marketing and widespread
`diversion of prescription opiates into states, counties and cities across
`the nation, and discovery likely will be voluminous. Although
`individualized factual issues may arise in each action, such issues do
`not—especially at this early stage of litigation—negate the efficiencies
`to be gained by centralization.
`Id. at 1378-79.
`
`The Panel has established MDLs in circumstances where different defendants produced
`
`an allegedly defective product. For example, the Panel decided that cases against Chinese
`
`drywall manufacturers whose products allegedly released sulfur gases, which corroded metal
`
`appliances and components in homes and also caused headaches, and respiratory and skin
`
`ailments, should be combined in one pretrial proceeding. In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall
`
`Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (J.P.M.L. June 15, 2009).
`
`Another example is In re Takata Airbag Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2599, 84 F.
`
`3d 1371 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 5, 2015). Takata made different airbags for major automobile
`
`manufacturers. Owners of vehicles equipped with Takata airbags alleged that the airbags
`
`exploded, sending metal shards into the passenger compartments of the affected vehicles.
`
`Plaintiffs sued Takata and the vehicle manufacturers in districts across the country. Ordering
`
`centralization in the Southern District of Florida, the Panel explained that
`
`[t]hese actions—all of which are putative nationwide class actions—share
`factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured
`airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal
`debris, resulting in injury or even death. Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the
`various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect
`years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the
`public. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
`inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and
`conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
`
`Id. at 1372.
`
`{00218188 }
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case NYE/1:21-cv-01287 Document 28 Filed 04/13/21 Page 6 of 8
`
`Defendants suggest that their efforts to steer cases into separate proceedings in different
`
`districts would eliminate the need for an MDL. What the defendants apparently desire is to create
`
`multiple, separate MDLs limited to claims against a single defendant. But defendants’ approach
`
`makes little sense because all plaintiffs allege that each of the defendants knowingly failed to
`
`disclose the presence of heavy metals in its baby food. Whatever the tactical or strategic benefit
`
`defendants believe they will gain, their proposal would diminish the efficiencies that animated
`
`the creation of the multidistrict litigation statute in the first place.
`
`As with Automotive Parts, Factor Concentrates, and Opiates, the conduct of an entire
`
`industry is being examined. How multiple cases in front of different judges in various districts
`
`and circuits is more just and efficient than one baby food MDL in front of one judge in one
`
`district and circuit is not apparent. A single judge making consistent rulings—as Judge Battani
`
`did in MDL No. 2311—with appeals to one circuit is preferable to the polyglot defendants
`
`seemingly prefer.
`
`Defendants already work together with respect to the same underlying issue asserted in
`
`the lawsuits—heavy metals in their baby food. Defendants Beech-Nut, Campbell Soup (Plum
`
`Organics), Gerber, Hain Celestial (Earth’s Best), and Happy Family Organics, and other
`
`organizations, formed a Baby Food Council in 2019 to coordinate with respect to heavy metals in
`
`the companies’ baby food products.
`
`CENTRALIZATION IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IS
`APPROPRIATE
`The Eastern District of New York is an appropriate and convenient venue for a baby food
`
`MDL. One of the defendants’ headquarters is in the Eastern District of New York, and another
`
`has its headquarters close to the Eastern District of New York. There are at least 17 cases
`
`against various defendants currently pending in the Eastern District of New York, more than in
`
`{00218188 }
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case NYE/1:21-cv-01287 Document 28 Filed 04/13/21 Page 7 of 8
`
`any other district. These factors favor the Eastern District of New York as a transferee court for
`
`these cases.
`
`CONCLUSION
`Centralization of the baby food cases will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
`
`inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of
`
`the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. These benefits will flow from a baby food MDL,
`
`which Plaintiffs respectfully request be established in the Eastern District of New York.
`
`Dated: April 13, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ William E. Hoese
`William E. Hoese
`Douglas A. Abrahams
`Craig W. Hillwig
`Barbara Gibson
`Zahra R. Dean
`Aaarthi Manohar
`KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
`1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: (215) 238-1700
`whoese@kohnswift.com
`dabrahams@kohnswift.com
`chillwig@kohnswift.com
`bgibson@kohnswift.com
`zdean@kohnswift.com
`amanohar@kohnswift.com
`
`David H. Fink
`Nathan J. Fink
`FINK BRESSACK
`38500 Woodward Ave; Suite 350
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Telephone: (248) 971-2500
`dfink@finkbressack.com
`nfink@finkbressack.com
`
`{00218188 }
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case NYE/1:21-cv-01287 Document 28 Filed 04/13/21 Page 8 of 8
`
`Michael L. Roberts
`Karen Halbert
`ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
`20 Rahling Circle
`Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
`Telephone: (501) 821-5575
`mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
`karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Erik Lawrence, Rachel M.
`Frantz, and Marie Mezile
`
`{00218188 }
`
`8
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket