Tina Kalajian v. Rite Aid Corporation et al

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO STAY CASE 17 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. the Court GRANTS the parties' Motion, and STAYS this case in its entirety until September 7, 2018. The Court ORDERS the parties to file joint status reports as to the progress of Beardsall, explaining to the Court the need to maintain the stay in this action every 60 days, until such time as the Beardsall matter concludes, or a stay no longer serves the interests of justice. (lom)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12

TINA KALAJIAN, individually and on

13

behalf of a class of similarly situated

14

individuals,

Case No. 2:17-cv-06777-ODW-AGR

MOTION TO STAY CASE [17]

Plaintiff,

15
16

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

v.

17

RITE AID CORPORATION, a

18

Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1

19

through 100, inclusive,

20
21

Defendants.
I.

INTRODUCTION

22

Tina Kalajian (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,

23

filed a suit against Rite Aid Corporation (“Defendant”) on September 14, 2017, for

24

improperly advertising, marketing, and selling an “aloe vera gel” without a detectable

25

level of aloe vera. (Compl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 1.) Another case is currently pending in

26

the Northern District of Illinois and involves similar issues. See Beardsall v. CVS

27

Pharmacy, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-06103 (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2016). The parties jointly

28

request to stay this action in its entirety for six months in order to allow the Beardsall

1

court to rule on class certification and the Beardsall parties to complete fact and

2

expert discovery.

3

GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay this litigation for all purposes until six (6)

4

months from the date of this order. 1

(Mot. Stay 3, ECF No 17.) For the following reasons, the Court

II.

5

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6

Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of a class, that Rite Aid Renewal After Sun Gel

7

purports and advertises itself as containing aloe vera, but independent laboratory tests

8

show Defendant’s product contains no actual aloe vera. (Compl. ¶¶ 2–3.) Plaintiff

9

alleges claims for Breach of Express Warranty; Violations of the Consumers Legal

10

Remedies Act; Violations of the False Advertising Act; and Unlawful, Unfair and

11

Fraudulent Business Acts and Practices. (Id. ¶¶ 56–89); see Cal. Comm. Code §

12

2313; Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.;

13

17500, et seq.

14

Beardsall is a class action against CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Target

15

Corp., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Fruit of the Earth, Inc. (Declaration of Andrew J.

16

Peterson (“Peterson Decl.”), Ex. A ¶¶ 45–49, ECF No. 17-2.) Like Rite Aid here, the

17

retailer defendants in the Beardsall action are also alleged to have sold aloe vera

18

products that do not have a detectable amount of aloe vera. (Id. ¶¶ 3–7.)

19

In both actions, the plaintiffs rely on independent laboratory testing that

20

revealed an absence of acemannan, the key compound in aloe vera. (Id. ¶ 102;

21

Compl. ¶ 22, 24.) The parties here contend that the discovery conducted in Beardsall,

22

especially the expert opinions gathered, will affect the outcome of this litigation,

23

which they maintain involves complex scientific issues. (Mot. Stay 1.) The Beardsall

24

court has ordered that class certification, Daubert, and dispositive motions be filed

25

with the court by May 11, 2018. (Beardsall Min. Order, No. 1:16-cv-06103, ECF No.

26
1

27
28

After considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.
Furthermore, since the parties request this stay jointly, there is no opposition for the Court to
consider.

2

1

143.) In contrast, Defendant has not yet filed a response to the initial complaint in this

2

case.

3

Recognizing that the Beardsall action is further progressed and addresses many

4

of the same “complex scientific issues present in the instant action,” the parties jointly

5

move the Court to stay this action for six months. (Joint Mot. 4, ECF No. 17.)
III.

6

LEGAL STANDARD

“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power in every court to

7
8

control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for

9

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 29 U.S. 248, 254

10

(1936). The Court exercises its discretion in making such determinations, weighing

11

competing interests, and seeking to maintain an even balance. See id. at 254–55. This

12

exercise of discretion includes an ability to stay a case “pending resolution of

13

independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of

14

Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). “This rule applies whether the separate

15

proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require

16

that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action before the

17

court.” Id. at 863–64.
IV.

18

DISCUSSION

19

To determine whether a stay should be granted, the Court considers (1) the

20

possible damage resulting from a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may

21

suffer if required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice, as measured by

22

whether the stay will simplify or complicate issues, proof, and questions of law.

23

Pamintuan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 16-CV-00254-HSG, 2016 WL 4319844,

24

at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2016) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th

25

Cir. 1962)). In this case, the balance of interests supports staying the proceeding since

26

all three of these factors weigh in favor of granting a stay.

27

A.

Potential Damage Caused by Stay

28

3

1

To determine any potential damage the stay could cause, the Court considers

2

whether the delay would cause harm to the merits of the claim or any loss of evidence.

3

Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-CV-1586 SC, 2015 WL 4451424, at *2 (N.D.

4

Cal. July 20, 2015). Neither party foresees any risk of prejudice in the instant action.

5

(Joint Mot. 6.) Plaintiff alleges no concerns regarding loss of witnesses, and there is

6

no indication of any other potentially lost evidence, given the short, six-month stay.

7

Rather, the Beardsall case may lead to additional scientific opinion that could

8

streamline this case, saving time and money for all involved. (Id.) Thus, this factor

9

weighs in favor of granting a stay.

10

B.

Potential Hardship of Going Forward

11

Courts also evaluate the hardship that would exist if the stay is not granted—

12

namely, whether a denial of the stay would lead to poor use of judicial resources or

13

unnecessarily duplicative discovery efforts. See Tawnsuara Grp., LLC v. Maximum

14

Human Performance, LLC, No. CV 12-07189 SJO (AGRx), 2013 WL 12138687, at

15

*3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2013). Much of the discovery in the Beardsall case is equivalent

16

to the discovery and expert opinion necessary in this case. (See Joint Mot. 6.) Both

17

center on products claiming to feature “aloe vera”-based ingredients, and both require

18

additional research to determine whether: 1) aloe vera is actually present in the

19

product; and 2) this finding impacts the product market. (See id. ¶¶ 28–31; Beardsall

20

Second Amended Complaint (“Beardsall SAC”) ¶¶ 100–13, No. 1:16-cv-06103, ECF

21

No. 90.) Moreover, this case requires consideration of issues closely related to those

22

in the Beardsall litigation with regard to both liability and remedies. (See Joint Mot.

23

5.) To consider these as novel issues when they are already being considered by the

24

Beardsall court would be an ineffective use of time and resources. Thus, this factor

25

also supports a stay.

26

C.

Orderly Course of Justice

27

The third and final factor also weighs heavily in favor of granting a stay. A stay

28

should be granted where it supports the interest of justice by “prevent[ing]

4

1

unnecessary complication.” Coker v. Dowd, No. 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 WL

2

12216682, at *1 (D. Nev. July 8, 2013). Resolution of proceedings in a case that

3

provides “clear guidance largely…on point to help . . . simplify complex issues of law

4

and adequate proof” is precisely the type for which stay should be granted. Wilson,

5

2015 WL 4451424, at *2.

6

The parties jointly assert that “[s]taying this case would promote the orderly

7

course of justice by helping to simplify complex scientific issues in the action.” (Joint

8

Mot. 5, ECF No. 17.) Allowing for Beardsall to further progress would inform and

9

streamline this litigation by reference to the rulings, arguments, and scientific analyses

10

from that action. (Joint Mot. 5.) Both cases center on the level of acemannan, aloe

11

vera’s definitive compound, in the products at issue. (Compl. ¶ 22; Peterson Decl.,

12

Ex. A ¶ 102, ECF No. 17-2.) Because the Beardsall action has further progressed and

13

will likely address issues of class certification, summary judgment, and expert

14

testimony within the next six months, the findings and decisions reached in Beardsall

15

will be informative to the parties here.

16

beneficial context for the scientific issues to be addressed and help to avoid the

17

potential of duplicative or moot litigation. (Id.) Accordingly, this factor also weighs

18

heavily in favor of granting the stay.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

(Joint Mot. 5–6.)

5

This would provide

1

///

2

///

3

///
V.

4
5

CONCLUSION

Having read and reviewed the parties’ Motion to Stay (ECF No. 17), and

6

finding good cause therefore, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Motion, and STAYS

7

this case in its entirety until September 7, 2018. The Court ORDERS the parties to

8

file joint status reports as to the progress of Beardsall, explaining to the Court the

9

need to maintain the stay in this action every 60 days, until such time as the Beardsall

10

matter concludes, or a stay no longer serves the interests of justice.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

March 7, 2018

15
16
17

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6