In Re Arizona Beverage Co. Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Arizona Beverage Co. Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation

609 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32105, 2009 WL 971485

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedApril 7, 2009

DocketMDL 2026

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 609 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (In Re Arizona Beverage Co. Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Arizona Beverage Co. Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32105, 2009 WL 971485 (jpml 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Common defendants Hornell Brewing Co., Inc.; Ferolito, Vultaggio & Sons; and Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the District of New Jersey. This litigation currently consists of three actions pending in that district, the Southern District of California, and the Southern District of Florida, respectively, as listed on Schedule A.

Plaintiffs in all three actions oppose centralization. If the Panel nevertheless orders centralization, plaintiffs in the California and Florida actions favor selection of the Southern District of Florida as transferee district, while plaintiff in the New Jersey action favors selection of the Southern District of California.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at the present time. The litigation currently involves are only three putative statewide class actions, none of which overlap. In addition, common legal issues do not predominate, as plaintiffs’ claims are brought under the laws of their respective states. Undoubtedly, the actions share some factual questions as to whether defendants deceptively marketed their iced tea beverages as “100% Natural” or “All Natural,” when those beverages contain high fructose corn syrup, but movants have failed to convince us that those questions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that may minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these three actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2026 — IN RE: ARIZONA BEVERAGE CO. PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

Southern District of California

Heidi Hitt v. Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:08-809

Southern District of Florida

Eric Covington v. Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:08-21894

District of New Jersey

Lauren Coyle v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-2797

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Common defendants Hornell Brewing Co., Inc.; Ferolito, Vultaggio & Sons; and Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the District of New Jersey. This litigation currently consists of three actions pending in that district, the Southern District of California, and the Southern District of Florida, respectively, as listed on Schedule A.

Plaintiffs in all three actions oppose centralization. If the Panel nevertheless orders centralization, plaintiffs in the California and Florida actions favor selection of the Southern District of Florida as transferee district, while plaintiff in the New Jersey action favors selection of the Southern District of California.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at the present time. The litigation currently involves are only three putative statewide class actions, none of which overlap. In addition, common legal issues do not predominate, as plaintiffs’ claims are brought under the laws of their respective states. Undoubtedly, the actions share some factual questions as to whether defendants deceptively marketed their iced tea beverages as “100% Natural” or “All Natural,” when those beverages contain high fructose corn syrup, but movants have failed to convince us that those questions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that may minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these three actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2026 — IN RE: ARIZONA BEVERAGE CO. PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

Southern District of California

Heidi Hitt v. Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:08-809

Southern District of Florida

Eric Covington v. Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:08-21894

District of New Jersey

Lauren Coyle v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-2797

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32105, 2009 WL 971485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arizona-beverage-co-products-marketing-sales-practices-litigation-jpml-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack