Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 28 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 115
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`NICOLE STEWART, ELIZABETH
`AGRAMONTE, and SUMMER APICELLA,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-678-JS-AYS
`
`The Honorable Joanna Seybert
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.’S RESPONSE
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
`
`As Plaintiffs note in their motion to consolidate, numerous plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in
`
`this District against Hain Celestial premised on the allegation that Earth’s Best baby food contains
`
`excessive amounts of heavy metals.1 While Hain Celestial contests these allegations, it does not
`
`oppose Plaintiffs’ request to consolidate the consumer fraud lawsuits predicated on this theory into
`
`a single proceeding before this Court. Hain Celestial nonetheless objects to Plaintiffs’ request for
`
`1 To date, these cases include: (1) Bredberg v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-758;
`(2) Mays v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-805; (3) Walls v. Beech-Nut Nutrition
`Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-870; (4) Boyd v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-884; (5)
`McKeon v. Hain Celestial Group d/b/a Earth’s Best Organics, Case No. 2:21-cv-938; (6)
`Baumgarten v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-944; (7) Willoughby v. Hain Celestial
`Group d/b/a Earth’s Best Organics, Case No. 2:21-cv-970; (8) Zorrilla v. Hain Celestial Group,
`Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-1062; (9) Lopez-Sanchez v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`1045; (10) Galloway v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-1067; (11) Baccari v. Hain
`Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-1076; (12) Albano v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case
`No. 2:21-cv-1118; (13) Hanson v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-1269; (14)
`Lawrence v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-1287; and (15) Henry v. Hain Celestial
`Group, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-1293.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 28 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 116
`
`consolidation to the extent it encompasses lawsuits asserting product liability or personal injury
`
`claims, including but not limited to Walls v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Co.
`
`Although Plaintiffs represent that the actions they seek to consolidate “present similar
`
`factual and legal issues” and “will involve the same or similar discovery” (ECF No. 19-1, at 5),
`
`that is not true with respect to the Walls matter, which asserts, among other things, claims against
`
`Hain Celestial for negligence, gross negligence, and strict products liability. See Walls Compl. ¶¶
`
`183-223. Those claims hinge on highly individualized questions of causation and injury and
`
`accordingly implicate far different factual and legal issues than the consumer fraud lawsuits
`
`pending in this District. Indeed, faced with a similar request to consolidate products liability and
`
`personal injury claims, another court denied that request because “the sole common fact” uniting
`
`those suits “is a claim of injury of such generality that it covers a number of different ailments for
`
`each of which there are numerous possible causes other than the tortious conduct of one of the
`
`defendants.”2 In re Consol. Parlodel Litig., 182 F.R.D. 441, 445 (D.N.J. 1998) (emphasizing that
`
`“commonality begins to be obscured by individual case histories”).
`
`Moreover, unlike the bulk of the consumer fraud lawsuits pending in this District, the Walls
`
`action asserts claims on behalf of the minor children who consumed Hain Celestial’s baby foods
`
`— not just the parents who purchased the food and allege they were misled by Hain Celestial’s
`
`advertising. That distinction further renders the Walls matter — or any other matter involving
`
`product liability or personal injury claims — a poor candidate for consolidation. See, e.g., Banacki
`
`v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 276 F.R.D. 567, 572 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (denying consolidation where
`
`2 See also, e.g., McCoy v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, No. 12-1436, 2019 WL 6324558, at *7 (D.
`Md. Nov. 25, 2019) (denying consolidation of product liability claims where, “despite some factual
`similarities, individual issues predominate in plaintiffs’ cases”); Hasman v. G.D. Searle & Co.,
`106 F.R.D. 459, 461 (E.D. Mich. 1985) (“When cases involve some common issues but individual
`issues predominate, consolidation should be denied.”)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 28 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 117
`
`“[t]he claims asserted by the putative plaintiff classes vary” and “will require the presentation of
`
`different evidence”).
`
`Finally, Hain Celestial notes that, following the filing of this motion, the plaintiffs in the
`
`Albano action filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to
`
`transfer all of the pending cases arising out of the alleged presence of heavy metals in baby food
`
`to a single multidistrict proceeding for pretrial purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Hain
`
`Celestial is assessing that motion and will respond in accordance with the briefing schedule set by
`
`the JPML.
`
`Dated: March 15, 2021
`
`By: /s/ Dean N. Panos
`Dean N. Panos (pro hac vice)
`Jenner & Block LLP
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 222-9350
`Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
`
`3
`
`