Orshansky v. L'oreal USA, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER Denying Transfer by MDL Panel. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2013)

Case MDL No. 2447 Document 26 Filed 06/06/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: MAYBELLINE NEW YORK AND L’ORÉAL PARIS
COSMETIC PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2447

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendants L’Oréal USA, Inc, and
Maybelline LLC move to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of New York. The
litigation encompasses the four actions listed on Schedule A.1
All responding plaintiffs – plaintiffs in the three California actions – oppose centralization.
If the Panel orders centralization over their objections, plaintiffs in the Eastern District of California
and Southern District of California actions ask that the Panel select the Southern District of California
as transferee district, while plaintiff in the action pending in the Northern District of California favors
selection of that district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we will deny the motion.
Although all four actions involve allegations that defendants’ lip products do not remain on wearers’
lips for the durations advertised, those products are not the same across all actions. In the Southern
District of New York and Northern District of Californian actions, the involved lip products are
Maybelline’s SuperStay 10HR Stain Gloss and SuperStay 14HR Lipstick. In the Southern District
of California and Eastern District of California actions, the involved product is SuperStay 24HR Lip
Color. In addition, two of the actions implicate products not found in any other action. Specifically,
the Northern District of California action involves allegations concerning certain mascara products,
and the Eastern District of California action involves allegations concerning a foundation product.
To the extent that there is factual overlap among the actions, the risk of duplicative discovery and
inconsistent pretrial rulings can be minimized through voluntary cooperation and coordination among
the parties and the involved courts. See In re: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2011).

1

The Panel has been informed of one additional related federal action, which is pending in
the Northern District of California.

Case MDL No. 2447 Document 26 Filed 06/06/13 Page 2 of 3

-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for
centralization of these four actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer

W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan

Case MDL No. 2447 Document 26 Filed 06/06/13 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: MAYBELLINE NEW YORK AND L’ORÉAL PARIS
COSMETIC PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of California
Patsy Murdock v. Maybelline, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-00207
Northern District of California
Liat Orshansky v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:12-06342
Southern District of California
Yanira Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, C.A. No. 3:12-03000
Southern District of New York
Carol Leebove, et al. v. Maybelline, LLC, C.A. No.1:12-07146

MDL No. 2447