`
`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.
`
`