Giampaoli et al v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC

Filing 23

ORDER by MDL Panel TRANSFERRING CASE to the Northern District of Ohio. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2013)

Case MDL No. 2448 Document 36 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 3

I hereby certify that this instrument is a true and
correct copy of the original on file in my office.
Attest: Geri M. Smith, Clerk
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Ohio
By: /S/Jennifer Smolinski
Deputy Clerk

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ANHEUSER-BUSCH BEER LABELING
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2448

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in a Northern District of California
action move for centralization of this litigation in the Northern District of California. This litigation
currently consists of six actions pending in six districts, as listed on Schedule A.1
Plaintiffs in all actions support the motion in its entirety. Defendant Anheuser-Busch
Companies, LLC, opposes centralization. If the Panel orders centralization over its objection,
Anheuser-Busch argues the Panel should select the Northern District of Ohio.
All actions before us allege that defendant deliberately and systematically overstates the
alcohol content of the same eleven malt beverage products by allegedly adding extra water to the
finished products. In opposing centralization, defendant principally argues that the factual issues are
not sufficiently complex or numerous to warrant centralization because, to the extent the alcohol
content of some products vary from their labels, the variance is within the range permitted by federal
regulation.2
Plaintiffs argue, and we agree, that notwithstanding defendant’s apparent acknowledgment
of some variance for unspecified products, the alleged conduct primarily at issue – systematic
overstatement of the alcohol content – will remain in dispute and will involve complex discovery
concerning the calibration of the involved equipment and corporate policy with respect to labeling.
Defendant also argues that centralization is not warranted because the number of involved actions
and counsel is limited and, thus, voluntary coordination is practicable. This argument is not
persuasive considering that six putative class actions are pending in six geographically dispersed
1

The Panel has been notified of two potentially related actions. These and any other related
actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.
2

In a related vein, defendant argues that little or no discovery will be required in light of the
defenses raised in its pending motions to dismiss. As the Panel held long ago, however, “‘[t]he
framers of Section 1407 did not contemplate that the Panel would decide the merits of the actions
before it and neither the statute nor the implementing Rules of the Panel are drafted to allow for such
determinations.’” See In re: Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Patent Litig., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1333,
1335 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (quoting In re: Kauffman Mut. Fund Actions, 337 F. Supp. 1337, 1339-40
(J.P.M.L.1972)).

Case MDL No. 2448 Document 36 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 3

-2districts and the overlap in counsel is minimal. Centralization thus likely will result in significant
efficiencies.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these six actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District
of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These six putative class actions share factual questions arising from
defendants’ alleged deliberate and systematic practice of overstating the alcohol content on the labels
of the following malt beverage products: Budweiser, Bud Ice, Bud Light Platinum, Michelob,
Michelob Ultra, Hurricane High Gravity Lager, King Cobra, Busch Ice, Natural Ice, Black Crown,
and Bud Light Lime. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Northern District of Ohio is an appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. This district provides a geographically central forum for this nationwide litigation, and
is equally convenient to plaintiffs and defendant. Judge Donald C. Nugent, who is presiding over one
of the actions, is an experienced transferee judge. We are confident he will steer this litigation on a
prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Ohio are transferred to the Northern District
of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Donald C. Nugent for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district and listed on
Schedule A.

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. 2448 Document 36 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: ANHEUSER-BUSCH BEER LABELING
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2448

SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
Nina Giampaoli, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00828
District of Colorado
Joel Richardson v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00506
District of New Jersey
Brian Wilson v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-01122
Northern District of Ohio
Joseph Hopkins, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00413
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Thomas Greenberg, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-01016
Northern District of Texas
Michael Seidenstein v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00917