Brod v. Sioux Honey Association,Cooperative
Filing
48
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER by MDL Panel. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2012)
Case MDL No. 2374 Document 67 Filed 08/02/12 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: HONEY PRODUCTION MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
MDL No. 2374
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida
action moves to centralize this litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation currently
consists of eight actions,1 as listed in Schedule A, pending in three districts: one in the Central District
of California, two in the Northern District of California, and five in the Southern District of Florida.
The Panel has been notified of four additional, potentially related actions.
Other than the movant, only defendants Target Corporation and HoneyTree Inc. support
centralization, albeit in the Southern District of Florida. All other responding parties oppose
centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that Section 1407
centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. Although the actions share some common factual questions
regarding the filtration of pollen from honey products, these questions do not appear sufficiently
complex or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. In contrast, the differences among
the actions are both significant and numerous. The actions involve different defendants, marketing
different honey products, and involve different state regulations subject to different legal challenges
by the defendants. Plaintiffs have not alleged any conspiracy, collaboration, or other industry-wide
conduct by the defendants that would justify centralizing actions naming different honey retailers and
producers as defendants. Available alternatives to centralization may minimize whatever possibilities
exist of duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co.,
(Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also Manual
for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).
*
1
Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.
The Section 1407 motion was originally filed by the plaintiff in an action pending in the
Central District of California. That action was subsequently remanded and the Section 1407 motion
amended to substitute another plaintiff as the movant.
Case MDL No. 2374 Document 67 Filed 08/02/12 Page 2 of 3
-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for
centralization of the action listed on Schedule A is denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
_________________________________________
John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Barbara S. Jones
Charles R. Breyer
W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Paul J. Barbadoro
Case MDL No. 2374 Document 67 Filed 08/02/12 Page 3 of 3
IN RE: HONEY PRODUCTION MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
MDL No. 2374
SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
Bertha Cardona v. Target Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01148
Northern District of California
Gregory Brod v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative, C.A. No. 3:12-01322
Soraya Ross v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative, C.A. No. 3:12-01645
Southern District of Florida
Sheri Bowers v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative, C.A. No. 1:12-21034
Reyna Guerrero v. Target Corporation, C.A. No. 1:12-21115
Belen Paugh v. Walgreen Company, C.A. No. 1:12-21229
Elaine Levy, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., C.A. No. 1:12-21607
David Goldblatt v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative, C.A. No. 9:12-80362
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?