Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 26 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 103
`
` 
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`CHARLOTTE WILLOUGHBY,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, d/b/a Earth’s
`Best Organics,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`NICOLE STEWART, ELIZABETH
`AGRAMONTE and SUMMER APICELLA,
`on behalf of themselves and all others
`similarly situated,,
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00970 
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT
`OF THE STEWART PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION AND
`TO SET DEADLINES
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Plaintiff Charlotte Willoughby (“Plaintiff”), Case No. 21-cv-00970, by and through her
`
`undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this response in support of Plaintiffs Nicole Stewart,
`
`Elizabeth Agramonte, and Summer Apicella’s (“the Stewart Plaintiffs”) Motion for Consolidation
`
`against Hain Celestial Group (“Defendant” or “Hain”). See Case No. 21-cv-00938-JMA-SIL, Dkt.
`
`9-1. As the Stewart Plaintiffs argue, these cases are ripe for consolidation into a single action under
`
`Stewart Action, the first-filed case in this District.
`
`There are eight similar actions (the “Related Actions”),1 including the McKeon Action that
`
`makes nearly identical factual allegations and legal claims currently pending before this Court.
`
`                                                            
`1 Stewart v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00678-JYS (E.D.N.Y.); Bredberg v.
`
`557648.2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 26 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 104
`
` 
`
`Through their respective class actions, plaintiffs in the Related Actions allege a combination of
`
`various state consumer protection statutes and other common law causes of action against
`
`Defendant Hain.2 The Related Actions each allege that certain of Hain’s baby food products (the
`
`“Tainted Baby Foods”) contain levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium,
`
`and mercury (the “Heavy Metals”) and that Hain misrepresented or omitted disclosure of this fact
`
`from consumers. Each Related Action seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief barring Hain from
`
`continuing to misrepresent the truth about its products as well as monetary damages compensating
`
`Plaintiffs and other purchasers for the purchase of the Tainted Baby Foods. Because the Related
`
`Actions present similar factual and legal issues and will involve the same or similar discovery,
`
`consolidation of the actions into a single action is called for under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42, where “actions before the court involve a common question
`
`of law or fact, the court may… consolidate the actions.” Where consolidation will accomplish
`
`judicial economy, “a district court will generally consolidate actions.” Micholle v. Ophthotech
`
`Corp., No. 17-CV-1758 (VSB), 2018 WL 1307285, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2018)
`
`(citing Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990)). The court has “broad
`
`                                                            
`The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00758 (E.D.N.Y.); Mays v. Hain Celestial
`Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00805 (E.D.N.Y.); Walls et al v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. et al,
`Case No. 1:21-cv-00870 (E.D.N.Y.); Boyd v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`00884 (E.D.N.Y.); McKeon v. Hain Celestial Group, d/b/a Earth’s Best Organics, Case No.
`2:21-cv-00938 (E.D.N.Y.); Baumgarten v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:21-
`cv-00944 (E.D.N.Y.); and Willoughby v. Hain Celestial Group, d/b/a Earth’s Best Organics,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00970 (E.D.N.Y.).
`2 The causes of action alleged include violations of, among others, New York, California, Illinois,
`Ohio, Minnesota, and Florida state consumer protection act statutes, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
`concealment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express
`warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, gross negligence, strict
`product liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraud by omission.
`
`557648.2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 26 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 105
`
` 
`
`discretion to determine whether consolidation is appropriate.” Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d
`
`1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990).
`
`
`
`Here, consolidation of the Related Actions is warranted under Rule 42(a), as the actions
`
`present essentially the same factual and legal issues, involve the same defendant, and will involve
`
`substantially the same discovery. See Doroz v. Delorio’s Foods, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 3d 140, 150
`
`(N.D.N.Y. 2020) (consolidation appropriate where two separate actions were “substantially
`
`similar.”) (citing Tucker v. Kenney, 994 F. Supp. 412, 415 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)); Irving Firemen's
`
`Relief & Ret. Fund v. Tesco PLC, No. 14 CIV. 10020 RMB, 2015 WL 1345931, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`Mar. 19, 2015) (granting motion for consolidation where the “complaints are related and all of the
`
`complaints describe the same allegedly fraudulent conduct.”). The Related Cases are all putative
`
`class actions on behalf of the same class (all purchasers of Hain Baby Foods) and raise nearly
`
`identical legal claims, including state consumer protection claims, warranty claims, and negligent
`
`misrepresentation. See Delre v. Perry, 288 F.R.D. 241, 246 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (consolidating cases
`
`where, “Plaintiffs both bring class action lawsuits on behalf of the same class and raise almost
`
`identical claims against the same Defendants” and where “both cases involve the same set of
`
`facts.”).
`
`
`
`Consolidation is in the best interests of judicial resources as well as the resources of the
`
`parties. Defendant will suffer no prejudice by litigating one consolidated action rather than nine
`
`—or more—separate suits. Consolidation of the Related Actions would therefore inure to the
`
`benefit of all parties involved as well as the Court.
`
`
`
`Because the instant issues share common issues of law and fact, Plaintiff supports the
`
`Stewart Plaintiffs’ Motion for Consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a).
`
` 
`
`557648.2
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 26 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 106
`
` 
`
`Dated: March 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
`
`
`
`s/ Rebecca A. Peterson
`ROBERT K. SHELQUIST, Pro Hac Vice
`REBECCA A. PETERSON, Pro Hac Vice
`100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Telephone: (612) 339-6900
`Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
`rkshelquist@locklaw.com
`rapeterson@locklaw.com
`
`CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
`Christian Hudson, Bar No. CH2626
`Charles LaDuca
`Katherine Van Dyck
`C. William Frick
`4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20016
`Telephone:(202) 789-3960
`Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
`E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
`kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
`bill@cuneolaw.com
`
`LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
`Joseph DePalma
`Susana Cruz Hodge
`570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
`Newark, NJ 07102
`Telephone: (973) 623-3000
`E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
`scruzhodge@litedepalma.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Charlotte Willoughby
`
`557648.2
`
`4
`
`