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)

Download PDF
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?