Sciortino et al v. Pepsico, Inc.
Filing
49
STIPULATION AND ORDER re (44 in 3:14-cv-00478-EMC) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATING CASES (except for Case Nos. C14-0713EMC and C14-2020EMC are not consolidated) filed by Mary Hall. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/20/14. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LIONEL Z. GLANCY (#134180)
MICHAEL GOLDBERG (#188669)
MARC L. GODINO (#182689)
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
DANIEL L. WARSHAW (#185365)
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone:(818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Kelly Ree and Mary Hall
and Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Class
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
STACY SCIORTINO and ARIELLE
WEINSTOCK,
CLASS ACTION
17
Plaintiffs,
18
19
CASE NO. 14-cv-00478-EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING
CONSOLIDATING CASES (except C14-713
v.
and C14-2020)
PEPSICO, INC.,
AND RELATED CASES:
20
Defendant.
21
Cortina v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-2023-EMC
Granados v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1316-EMC
Ibusuki v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1193-EMC
Ree v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1192-EMC
Aourout v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1105-EMC
Hall v. PepsiCo, Case, No. 14-1099-EMC
Langley v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-713-EMC
Riva v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-2020-EMC
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
859856.1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATING CASES
1
2
3
WHEREAS, plaintiffs have brought nine consumer class actions on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of persons who bought certain products manufactured by Defendant PepsiCo,
Inc. (“Pepsi” or Defendant”) containing 4-methylimidazole (“4-MEI”)1;
4
5
6
WHEREAS, plaintiffs in the nine actions all allege that Pepsi sold products containing 4MEI in violation of California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
(“Proposition 65”);
7
8
9
WHEREAS, all nine actions filed to date involve common questions of law and fact against
the same Defendant, allege similar claims based on the same common conduct, and seek class
certification;
10
WHEREAS, the Court has already deemed the nine actions related;2
11
12
13
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2014, counsel for Plaintiffs Kelly Ree and Mary Hall filed a Motion
for Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel with the support of counsel from seven of the nine
actions,3 Docket Entry No. 42;
14
15
16
17
WHEREAS, plaintiffs in seven of the actions (the Sciortino, Cortina, Granados, Ibusuki,
Ree, Aourout and Hall actions) and Defendant (the “Stipulating Parties”) are in agreement that these
cases should be consolidated for all purposes, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)
because these actions all involve common issues of law and fact;
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
The nine actions are as follows: Sciortino v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-cv-00478-EMC; Cortina v.
PepsiCo, Case No. 14-2023-EMC; Granados v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1316-EMC; Ibusuki v.
PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1193-EMC; Ree v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-1192-EMC; Aourout v. PepsiCo,
Case No. 14-1105-EMC; Hall v. PepsiCo, Case, No. 14-1099-EMC; Langley v. PepsiCo, Case No.
14-713-EMC; Riva v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-2020-EMC.
2
24
See Docket Entry Nos. 17 (Langley), 25 (Hall), 27 (Ree), 28 (Ibusuki), 30 (Granados), 37
(Cortina), 34 (Riva), and 21 (Aourout).
25
3
27
The only firms who do not support this motion are The Katriel Law Firm and Krause Kalfayan
Benink & Slavens, LLP (counsel in Riva v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-2020-RMC) and The Mehdi
Firm (counsel in Langley v. PepsiCo, Case No. 14-713-EMC). These firms filed their own motion
for appointment of lead counsel.
28
859856.1
26
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATING CASES
1
1
2
3
WHEREAS, the Stipulating Parties are also in agreement that the Riva and Langley actions
should be consolidated, even though counsel for Riva and Langley have not consented to
consolidation and therefore are not signatories to this stipulation; and
4
5
6
7
8
9
WHEREAS, Defendant agrees to consolidation for pretrial purposes but it expressly
reserves all of its objections to class certification, including but not limited to the absence of
common questions susceptible to common answers, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct.
2541, 2551, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011), and that common questions do not predominate over
individualized questions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, 133
S. Ct. 1426 (2013).
10
11
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED among the
Stipulating Parties, through their respective counsel as follows:
12
13
14
1.
consolidated for all purposes, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) (collectively, the
“Consolidated Action”).
15
16
2.
Each case that relates to the same subject matter that is subsequently filed in this
Court or is transferred to this Court shall be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.
17
3.
An original of this Order shall be filed by the Clerk in the Master File.
4.
18
19
The Sciortino, Cortina, Granados, Ibusuki, Ree, Aourout and Hall actions are
Every pleading in the Consolidated Action shall have the caption of the Sciortino
action.
20
21
IT IS SO STIPULATED
22
23
Dated: June 18, 2014
24
By: /s/ Marc L. Godino
Marc L. Godino
25
26
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kelly Ree and Proposed Interim
Co-Lead Counsel for the Class
27
28
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
859856.1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATING CASES
2
1
Dated: June 18, 2014
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
2
By: /s/ Daniel L. Warshaw
Daniel L. Warshaw
3
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff Mary Hall and Proposed Interim
Co-Lead Counsel for the Class
5
6
7
Dated: June 18, 2014
8
By: /s/ William A. Baird
William A. Baird
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Stacy Sciortino and Arielle
Weinstock
11
12
MARLIN & SALTZMAN
Dated: June 18, 2014
LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD PC
13
By: /s/ John J. Fitzgerald
John J. Fitzgerald
14
15
Attorneys for Plaintiff Thamar Santisteban Cortina
16
17
Dated: June 18, 2014
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
18
By: /s/ Jon Tostrud
Jon Tostrud
19
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff Williamson Granados
21
22
Dated: June 18, 2014
KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
23
By: /s/ Michael Louis Kelly
Michael Louis Kelly
24
25
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kent Ibusuki
26
27
28
859856.1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATING CASES
3
1
Dated: June 18, 2014
SEEGER WEISS LLP
2
By: /s/ Jonathan Shub
Jonathan Shub
3
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff Souzan Aourout
5
6
Dated: June 18, 2014
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
7
By: /s/ Christopher Chorba
Christopher Chorba
8
9
Attorneys for Defendant PepsiCo, Inc.
10
11
FILER’S ATTESTATION
12
I, Daniel L. Warshaw, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being
13
14
15
16
used to file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
CONSOLIDATING CASES. I hereby attest that the counsel listed above concur in this
filing.
17
DATED: June 18, 2014
/s/ Daniel L. Warshaw
DANIEL L. WARSHAW
18
19
20
21
except for C14-713 EMC and C14-2020 EMC are not consolidated.
23
June 20, 2014
UNIT
ED
S
Dated: _____________________
S DISTRICT
TE
________________________________________
C
TA
Honorable Edward M. Chen
RT
U
O
25
United States District Court Judge
27
dward
Judge E
n
M. Che
RT
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATING CASES
4
H
ER
LI
859856.1
NO
28
A
26
DERED
SO OR ED
IT IS
DIFI
AS MO
R NIA
24
All cases are consolidated
FO
22
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
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?