Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 239
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`NICOLE STEWART, ELIZABETH
`AGRAMONTE, and SUMMER APICELLA,
`on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
` X
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATION ORDER
`Case No.: 21-CV-0678 (JS)(AYS)
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`SALLY BREDBERG and REBECCA
`BROMBERG, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
` X
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`Case No.: 21-CV-0758
`
`THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ALYSSA MAYS, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
` X
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`Case No.: 21-CV-0805
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
` X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 240
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHELLE WALLS, on behalf of herself
`and all others similarly situated; and N.W.,
`a minor child, by his parent and general
`guardian Michelle Walls, on behalf of himself
`and all others similarly situated,
`
` X
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`Case No.: 21-CV-0870
`
`BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY;
`THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.;
`NURTURE, INC. D/B/A HAPPY FAMILY
`ORGANICS; GERBER PRODUCTS
`COMPANY; and PLUM PBC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`LEE BOYD, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
` X
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`Case No.: 21-CV-0884
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`KELLY MCKEON, RENEE BRYAN, and
`MARILYN CARSON, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
` X
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`Case No.: 21-CV-0938
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, d/b/a
`Earth’s Best Organics,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
` X
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 241
`
` X
`
`LEIBA BAUMGARTEN, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`Case No.: 21-CV-0944
`
`THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`CHARLOTTE WILLOUGHBY,
`
`Defendant.
`
` X
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`Case No.: 21-CV-0970
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, d/b/a
`Earth’s Best Organics,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
` X
`
`WHEREAS, there are five (5) putative class actions pending before the
`
`
`SEYBERT, District Judge:
`
`
`
`undersigned against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (“Hain”) asserting violations of various state
`
`consumer protection laws and statutes arising out of allegations that Hain engaged in deceptive
`
`business practices with respect to its baby food products by failing to disclose that the products
`
`contain levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. See Stewart
`
`et al. v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0678 (the “Stewart Action”); Bredberg et al. v. The
`
`Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0758 (the “Bredberg Action”); Boyd v. Hain Celestial
`
`Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0884 (the “Boyd Action”); Galloway v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No.
`
`21-CV-1067 (the “Galloway Action”); and Baccari et al. v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-
`
`CV-1076 (the “Baccari Action”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 242
`
`
`
`
`
`WHERAS, in addition to the Stewart Action, the Bredberg Action, the Boyd
`
`Action, the Galloway Action, and the Baccari Action, there are eleven (11) similar putative class
`
`actions pending in this District against Hain (for a total of sixteen (16)) alleging violations of
`
`various state statutes and common law based on the same or similar facts and issues of law: Zorrilla
`
`v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1062; Lopez-Sanchez v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No.
`
`21-CV-1045; Albano v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1118 (the “Albano Action”);
`
`Hanson v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1269; Lawrence v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.,
`
`No. 21-CV-1287 (the “Lawrence Action”); Walls v. Beech Nut Nutrition Company, et al., No. 21-
`
`CV-0870 (the “Walls Action”); Mays v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0805; Willoughby
`
`v. Hain Celestial Group, d/b/a Earth’s Best Organics, No. 21-CV-0970 (the “Willoughby Action”);
`
`McKeon et al. v. Hain Celestial Group, d/b/a Earth’s Best Organics, No. 21-CV-0938 (the
`
`“McKeon Action”); Baumgarten v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0944; and Henry
`
`v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1293.
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs in the Stewart Action filed a motion to consolidate all
`
`sixteen (16) cases, referenced above, in the Stewart Action, the first-filed action, before the
`
`undersigned. (Stewart Pls. Mot., ECF No. 19; Stewart Pls. Br., ECF No. 19-1; Stewart Pls. Replies,
`
`ECF Nos. 39 & 43; Pollack Decl., ECF No. 40.)1
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, Hain contests the allegations asserted against it but does not oppose
`
`consolidation; however, Hain objects to consolidation of actions asserting product liability claims
`
`or personal injury claims, including the Walls Action. (Hain Resp., ECF No. 28.)
`
`
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all docket citations refer to the Stewart Action docket. Note,
`however, that the Stewart Plaintiffs filed their motion to the dockets in the Bredberg Action at ECF
`No. 11, the Boyd Action at ECF No. 8, the Galloway Action at ECF No. 2, and the Baccari Action
`at ECF No. 6.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 243
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the plaintiffs in the Willoughby Action and the McKeon Action do
`
`not oppose consolidation. (Willoughby Pl. Resp., ECF No. 26; McKeon Pls. Resp., ECF No. 27.)
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the plaintiffs in the Walls Action and the Albano Action oppose
`
`consolidation. (Walls Pl. Resp., ECF No. 36; Albano Pl. Resp., Albano Action Dkt., ECF No. 20.)
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, Gerber Products Company, a defendant in the Walls Action, the
`
`Albano Action, and the Lawrence Action, moved to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing
`
`consolidation, arguing that it intends to file a motion to (1) sever the claims asserted against it and
`
`(2) transfer the claims to the District of New Jersey. (Gerber Mot., ECF No. 32; Gerber Br., ECF
`
`No. 33.)
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, Plum, PBC, a defendant in the Walls Action, filed an objection to
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate. (Plum Obj., ECF No. 35.)
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, Nurture Inc., a defendant in the Walls Action, the Albano Action, and
`
`the Lawrence Action, filed an opposition to the consolidation motion, arguing that the plaintiffs
`
`“fail to show that consolidation of the claims against multiple defendants is appropriate,” among
`
`other arguments. (Nurture Opp., ECF No. 37.)
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that a court may
`
`consolidate “actions before the court” if they “involve a common question of law or fact.” Courts
`
`have “‘broad discretion’ to determine whether to consolidate actions.” Breakwater Trading LLC
`
`v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 20-CV-3515, 2020 WL 5992344, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2020)
`
`(quoting Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990)). In determining whether
`
`to consolidate actions, courts may consider “judicial economy,” which favors consolidation, but
`
`must ensure that consolidation will not jeopardize “a fair and impartial trial.” Johnson, 899 F.2d
`
`at 1285.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 244
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, upon due consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds
`
`that entry of this Order will promote judicial economy, avoid duplicative proceedings, and
`
`streamline adjudication of related matters.
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1.
`
`Gerber Products Company’s motion to intervene for the limited purpose of
`
`opposing consolidation (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED, as provided herein; and, upon due
`
`consideration, Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED in part and
`
`DENIED in part, as provided herein; and
`
`2.
`
`The following actions, asserting violations of various state consumer protection
`
`laws and statutes arising out of allegations that Hain engaged in deceptive business practices
`
`with respect to its baby food products by failing to disclose that the products contain levels of
`
`toxic heavy metals,
`
`including arsenic,
`
`lead, cadmium, and mercury, are hereby
`
`CONSOLIDATED before the undersigned and shall proceed under lead Case No. 21-CV-0678
`
`as follows: In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case No. 21-CV-0678 (the
`
`“Consolidated Action”). All future filings shall be docketed in lead Case No. 21-CV-0678.
`
`For the avoidance of doubt, at this time, the following cases in this District are to be
`
`consolidated:
`
`a) Stewart et al. v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0678;
`
`b) Bredberg et al. v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0758;
`
`c) Boyd v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0884;
`
`d) Mays v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0805;
`
`e) Willoughby v. Hain Celestial Group, d/b/a Earth’s Best Organics, No. 21-CV-0970;
`
`f) McKeon v. Hain Celestial Group, d/b/a Earth’s Best Organics, No. 21-CV-0938;
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 245
`
`g) Baumgarten v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-0944;
`
`h) Zorrilla v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1062;
`
`i) Lopez-Sanchez v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1045;
`
`j) Galloway v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1067;
`
`k) Baccari et al. v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1076;
`
`l) Hanson v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1269;
`
`m) Henry v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 21-CV-1293; and
`
`3.
`
`The portion of Plaintiffs’ motion seeking to consolidate the Plaintiffs’ consumer
`
`protection-related claims against Hain only in the Albano Action, Case No. 21-CV-1118
`
`(Azrack, J.) and the Lawrence Action, Case No. 21-CV-1287 (Komitee, J.) is DENIED, without
`
`prejudice and leave to renew at such a time as (1) the respective courts rule on any forthcoming
`
`severance and/or transfer motion, or (2) the parties request reassignment of their respective case
`
`to, and raise the issues before, the undersigned; and
`
`4.
`
`Any and all personal injury and product liability claims for non-economic
`
`damages (collectively, the “PI Claims”) asserted against Hain in the above-listed actions,
`
`including the Walls Action, No. 21-CV-0938, shall not be asserted in the Consolidated Action.
`
`Any and all such PI Claims against Hain which arise out of the same or similar facts as alleged
`
`in the Consolidated Actions shall be asserted in a separate action. Accordingly, the portion of
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion seeking to consolidate the Walls Action is DENIED, without prejudice and
`
`leave to renew at such a time as (1) the respective court rules on any severance and/or transfer
`
`motion, or (2) the parties request reassignment of their respective case to, and raise the issues
`
`before, the undersigned; and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 246
`
`5.
`
`Any actions filed, transferred, or removed to this District after the date of this
`
`Order that assert consumer protection type claims against Hain, and rise out of the same or
`
`similar facts, shall be subject to consolidation with the Consolidated Action for all pre-trial
`
`purposes. A party seeking consolidation in accordance with this Order may do so by letter
`
`motion and reference this Order. If the Court determines that the case is related and should
`
`be consolidated, the Clerk of the Court shall be directed to:
`
`a) Assign each subsequently filed action a new case number (“Newly-Filed
`Action”) to proceed before the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Anne Y.
`Shields;
`
`b) Docket this Order in the Newly-Filed Action;
`
`c) Consolidate each Newly-Filed Action with the Consolidated Action and make
`an appropriate entry on the Consolidated Action’s docket so indicating;
`
`d) Administratively close each Newly-Filed Action; and
`
`Every pleading in In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case
`
`6.
`
`No. 21-CV-0678, shall bear the following (or substantially similar) caption:
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
` )
`In re HAIN CELESTIAL HEAVY
`METALS BABY FOOD LITIGATION ) Case No.: 2:21-CV-0678-JS-AYS
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`
`7.
`
`When a pleading is intended to be applicable to all actions in the Consolidated
`
`Action, the words “All Actions” shall appear immediately after the words “This Document
`
`Relates to:” in the caption set forth above. When a pleading is intended to be applicable to some,
`
`but not all, of such actions, the parties shall indicate the individual docket number(s) and the
`
`plaintiffs’ names that are applicable; and
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 247
`
`8.
`
`Motions to appoint interim lead counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23(g) shall be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order; and
`
`9.
`
`The Court will issue a deadline for interim lead counsel to file a Consolidated
`
`Amended Complaint within forty-five (45) days after its ruling on the appointment of interim
`
`lead counsel.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
` Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gerber Products Company’s
`
`motion to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing consolidation (ECF No. 32) is
`
`GRANTED, as provided herein; and, Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate (ECF No. 19) is
`
`GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as provided herein; and
`
`
`
` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the cases outlined in paragraph 2 (pages 6-7),
`
`above, are hereby CONSOLIDATED before the undersigned and shall proceed under lead Case
`
`No. 21-CV-0678 as follows: In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation. All future
`
`filings shall be docketed in lead Case No. 21-CV-0678; and
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, at this time, the Albano Action, No. 21-CV-
`
`1118, the Lawrence Action, No. 21-CV-1287, and the Walls Action, No. 21-CV-0938 shall not
`
`be consolidated with lead Case No. 21-CV-0678; and
`
`
`
` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions to appoint interim lead counsel
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) shall be filed within fourteen (14) days from the
`
`date of this Order; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 47 Filed 05/13/21 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 248
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed
`
`to docket this Order in all sixteen (16) cases recited on pages 3-4 of this Order; consolidate and
`
`then close the cases outlined in paragraph 2 (pages 6-7) of this Order, supra; terminate all motions
`
`pending in the individual case dockets related to consolidation; and change the caption of Case
`
`No. 21-CV-0678 to “In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
`Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 13 , 2021
`
`Central Islip, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`