Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 27 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 107
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS
`
`NICOLE STEWART, ELIZABETH
`AGRAMONTE, and SUMMER APICELLA,
`on behalf of themselves and all others
`similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`SALLY BREDBERG and REBECCA
`BROMBERG, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00758
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ALYSSA MAYS, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. 2:21-00805
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 27 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 108
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-00870
`
`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,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`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,
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00884
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`KELLY MCKEON, RENEE BRYAN, and
`MARILYN CARSON, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00938
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., d/b/a
`Earth’s Best Organics,
`
`Defendant.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 27 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 109
`
`LEIBA BAUMGARTEN, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00944
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CHARLOTTE WILLOUGHBY,
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00970
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., d/b/a
`Earth’s Best Organics,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MCKEON PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE STEWART PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION AND TO SET DEADLINES
`Plaintiffs Kelly McKeon, Renee Bryan, and Marilyn Cason, (“the McKeon Plaintiffs”),
`
`Case No. 21-cv-00938-JMA-SIL, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully submit
`
`this response in support of Plaintiffs’ Nicole Stewart, Elizabeth Agramonte, and Summer Apicella
`
`(“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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 27 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 110
`
`As the Stewart Plaintiffs stated, there are eight similar actions (the “Related Actions”)1,
`
`including the McKeon Action, making nearly identical factual allegations and legal claims
`
`currently pending before this Court. 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.
`
`The Related Actions present similar factual and legal issues and will involve the same or similar
`
`discovery. Accordingly, consolidation of the actions into a single action is called for under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 42(a). 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
`
`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
`
`1 Stewart v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00678-JYS (E.D.N.Y.); Bredberg v.
`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.
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 27 Filed 03/15/21 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 111
`
`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
`
`discretion to determine whether consolidation is appropriate.” Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1284.
`
`Here, consolidation of the Related Actions is warranted, as the actions present essentially
`
`the same factual and legal issues, involve the same defendant, and will involve substantially the
`
`same discovery, consolidation is appropriate under Rule 42(a). 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, the McKeon plaintiffs
`
`support the Stewart Plaintiffs’ Motion for Consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (a).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 27 Filed 03/15/21 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 112
`
`Dated: March 15, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/Kevin Landau
`Kevin Landau
`Miles Greaves
`TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
`80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
`New York, NY 10038
`Tel: (212) 931-0704
`klandau@tcllaw.com
`mgreaves@tcllaw.com
`
`Daniel E. Gustafson
`Raina C. Borrelli
`GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
`Canadian Pacific Plaza
`120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 333-8844
`dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
`rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
`
`Kenneth A. Wexler
`Kara A. Elgersma
`WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
`55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`Tel: (312) 346-2222
`kaw@wexlerwallace.com
`kae@wexlerwallace.com
`
`Simon B. Paris
`Patrick Howard
`SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, &
`BENDESKY, P.C.
`1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: (215) 575-3895
`sparis@smbb.com
`phoward@smbb.com
`Matthew D. Schelkopf
`Lori G. Kier
`Davina C. Okonkwo
`SAUDER SCHELKOPF
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 27 Filed 03/15/21 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 113
`
`1109 Lancaster Avenue
`Berwyn, PA 19312
`Tel: (610) 200-0581
`mds@sstriallawyers.com
`lgk@sstriallawyers.com
`dco@sstriallawyers.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 27 Filed 03/15/21 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 114
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 15th day of March 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`Response in Support of Stewart Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate and to Set Deadlines using the
`
`CM/EMF System, which will then send a notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Kevin S. Landau
`Kevin S. Landau
`
`8
`
`