throbber
Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 35 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 135
`
`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,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-678
`OBJECTION OF NON-PARTY PLUM,
`PBC TO THE MOTION TO
`CONSOLIDATE WALLS V. BEECHNUT
`NUTRITION CO., ET AL. WITH CASES
`CURRENTLY PENDING AGAINST
`DEFENDANT, HAIN CELESTIAL
`GROUP, INC.
`
`NOTICE OF OBJECTION OF NON-PARTY PLUM, PBC TO THE MOTION TO
`CONSOLIDATE WALLS V. BEECHNUT NUTRITION CO., ET AL. WITH CASES
`CURRENTLY PENDING AGAINST DEFENDANT, HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.
`
`Plum, PBC (“Plum”) respectfully files this brief Notice of Objection and response to
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate Walls v. Beechnut Nutrition Co., et al. (“Walls”), Case No.
`
`1:21-cv-870-DG-SJB (E.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 17, 2021), with several putative class action
`
`complaints filed against Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (“Hain”). (Dkt. No. 6) Plum is not a party to
`
`any of the other putative class action complaints pending before this Court against Hain,
`
`including the first-filed case, Stewart et al. v. Hain Celestial Grp, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00678-JS-
`
`AYS (E.D.N.Y.), which Plaintiffs propose for consolidation. Walls, the only case naming Plum
`
`that Plaintiffs seek to consolidate, is not currently before this Court. Rather, Walls is pending
`
`before Judge Gujarati.
`
`Plaintiffs acknowledge the irregular nature of their motion to consolidate Walls into a
`
`single proceeding styled as In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, and
`
`particularly the jurisdictional problem created by a request to affect the rights of parties not
`
`before this Court. As such, they qualify their motion by stating that the issue of consolidating all
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00678-JS-AYS Document 35 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 136
`
`claims “can be revisited and revised following appearances by those defendants other than Hain
`
`and the Court’s examination and any rulings regarding how that case will be handled in light of
`
`the multiple defendants.” ECF No. 19-1 at n.5.
`
`Plum respectfully disagrees with Plaintiffs’ invitation for this Court to take jurisdiction
`
`over a matter not before it. Plum objects to Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate to the extent they
`
`propose to include any counts or claims brought by the Walls plaintiffs against Plum.1
`
`Dated: March 15, 2021
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`/s/ Mark Cheffo
`Mark Cheffo (Attorney ID 2395671)
`DECHERT LLP
`1095 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel. 212-698-3500
`Fax 212-698-3599
`mark.cheffo@dechert.com
`
`Attorney for Defendant Plum, PBC
`
`1 Plum takes no position at this time on whether Hain-only counts or claims, were they to be
`severed and refiled by the Walls Plaintiffs, could be coordinated in some fashion with the Hain-
`only cases.
`
`

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