Ham v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER granting, as modified, 58 STIPULATION TO STAY CASE. Status Report due by 6/10/2016 and every six months thereafter. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/10/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE TOWER BUILDING
1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CA 94612
TEL: [phone]

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

11
13

Scott Edward Cole, Esq. (S.B. #160744)
Molly A. DeSario, Esq. (S.B. #230763)
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Web: www.scalaw.com
Attorneys for Representative Plaintiff
and the Plaintiff Classes
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
Kenneth K. Lee (Cal. Bar No. 264296)
[e-mail]
Kelly M. Morrison (Cal. Bar No. 255513)
[e-mail]
633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054
Phone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

16

JENNER & BLOCK LLP
Dean N. Panos (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-3456
Phone:
[phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17

Attorneys for The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

14
15

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
21
22

ANA BELEN HAM, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff,
vs.
THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP,
INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-02044-WHO
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY
CASE PENDING THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S
RESOLUTION OF BRAZIL V. DOLE FOOD
COMPANY, INC., JONES V. CONAGRA
FOODS, INC., AND KOSTA V. DEL MONTE
FOODS, INC.

-1-

Stipulation and Order to Stay Case

Plaintiff Ana Belen Ham (“Plaintiff”) and defendant The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

1
2

(“Defendant”) hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS this lawsuit challenges allegedly false and deceptive mislabeling of food

3
4

products manufactured by Defendant;

5

WHEREAS the parties expect that anticipated decisions made by the Ninth Circuit in the

6

appeals in Brazil v. Dole Food Company, Inc., No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. Filed December 17,

7

2014), Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. Filed July 14, 2014), and Kosta v.

8

Del Monte Foods, Inc., No. 15-16974 (9th Cir. Filed October 2, 2015) will provide useful

9

guidance on threshold issues in this case relating to ascertainability, predominance, and monetary

10

relief;
WHEREAS other courts in this district have stayed similar food labeling cases because

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE TOWER BUILDING
1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CA 94612
TEL: [phone]

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

11

the litigants expect that the aforementioned anticipated decisions made by the Ninth Circuit will

13

provide useful guidance on threshold issues of ascertainability, predominance, and monetary

14

relief. See Pardini v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. 13-cv-01675-SC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

15

49752, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015); Wilson v. Frito-Lay North Am., Inc., No. 12-CV-1586

16

SC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94179, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2015); Leonhart v. Nature's Path

17

Foods, Inc., No. 13-cv-00492-BLF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73269, *9 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2015);

18

Order Staying Case, Parker v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. 13-0690 SC, Dkt. No 74 (N.D. Cal.

19

December 18, 2014); Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., No. 13-CV-04537-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

20

171736 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014); Stipulation And Order Staying Case, Swearingen v. ConAgra

21

Foods, Inc., No. C13-05322, Dkt. No. 36 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2015); and Order By Judge Haywood

22

S. Gilliam, Jr. Staying Case, Allen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 3:13-CV- 01279-VC, Dkt. No. 152

23

(N.D. Cal. 2013);

24

WHEREAS the Brazil appeal raises issues pertinent to Plaintiff’s motion for class

25

certification: While Judge Koh initially certified a damages and injunctive class of consumers

26

who purchased Dole food products bearing the allegedly false label “All Natural Fruit,” she later

27

decertified the class because she found the plaintiff’s regression analysis to be insufficient. Brazil

28

v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-CV-01831-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74234, at *68-2-

Stipulation and Order to Stay Case

1

71 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2014); Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-CV-01831-LHK,

2

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157575, at *45 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) (decertifying damages class). At

3

issue on appeal in Brazil is whether the only possible model of restitution or disgorgement is the

4

difference-in-value method adopted by this Court;

5

WHEREAS the Jones appeal raises three additional relevant issues: (1) imposition and

6

analysis of the ascertainability requirement; (2) analysis of the predominance requirement; and

7

(3) determination of an acceptable restitution/damages theory. See Brief of Appellant at 2, Jones

8

v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2014). “Those very same issues are

9

almost certain to be raised in this case, and they are likely to be dispositive on a motion for class

10

certification.” Pardini, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49752, at *6;

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE TOWER BUILDING
1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CA 94612
TEL: [phone]

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

11

WHEREAS the Del Monte appeal involves, inter alia, the issues of ascertainability and
materiality, both of which Plaintiff anticipates Defendant will raise as issues in this case.

13

WHEREAS the Court has the inherent power to stay proceedings. Pardini, 2015 U.S.

14

Dist. LEXIS 49752, at *2 (quoting Landis v. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In deciding

15

whether to stay proceedings, the Court considers “the possible damage which may result from

16

granting a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go

17

forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating

18

of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.’” Id. at *2-3

19

(quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F. 2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). In cases where substantial

20

litigation is likely to take place during the pendency of an appeal, courts have granted a stay as a

21

means of conserving judicial resources. See Canal Props. LLC v. Alliant Tax Credit V, Inc., No.

22

C04–03201 SI, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49366, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2005) (granting stay

23

where case on appeal was likely to have preclusive effect, and where substantial litigation would

24

likely take place during the pendency of the appeal);

25

WHEREAS a stay here will promote the orderly course of justice through the

26

simplification of the legal questions of how the requirements for ascertainability, materiality, and

27

predominance apply in consumer class actions, as well as what the appropriate damages theories

28

might be;
-3-

Stipulation and Order to Stay Case

1

WHEREAS staying this case will also conserve the parties’ resources and enable a more

2

efficient and less expensive resolution of Plaintiff’s claims. If this case were to go forward, the

3

parties would expend significant time and resources in discovery and at the class certification

4

stage and beyond. They would also expend considerable resources arguing the class certification

5

motion, and possibly appealing any ruling on class certification to the Ninth Circuit. But the

6

Ninth Circuit may clarify the applicable law and the requirements for the factual record that

7

needs to be developed at this stage. Just as the parties urged in Leonhart, absent a stay the parties

8

here would likely be forced to re-depose key witnesses, and re-brief class certification after a

9

decision in Brazil, et al.
instant action should be stayed pending resolution of the appeals in Brazil v. Dole Food

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE TOWER BUILDING
1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CA 94612
TEL: [phone]

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the

11
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

10

Company, Inc., No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. Filed December 17, 2014), Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,

13

No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. Filed July 14, 2014), and Kosta v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., No. 15-16974

14

(9th Cir. Filed October 2, 2015).

15
16
17
18

Dated: December __, 2015

19

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

20
21

By:

22
23

__________________________________

Molly A. DeSario, Esq.
Attorneys for the Representative Plaintiff
and the Plaintiff Classes

24
25

Dated: December __, 2015

26

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

27
28

By:

__________________________________
-4-

Stipulation and Order to Stay Case

Kelly M. Morrison
Attorneys for Defendant
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ATTESTATION
I, Molly A. DeSario, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay Case. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby
attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from signatory Kelly M.
Morrison.

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE TOWER BUILDING
1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CA 94612
TEL: [phone]

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

Stipulation and Order to Stay Case

1
2
3
4
5
6

ORDER

and in light of the pending appeals in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Brazil v. Dole Food

9

Company, Inc., No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. Filed December 17, 2014), Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,

10

No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. Filed July 14, 2014), and Kosta v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., No. 15-16974

11

(9th Cir. Filed October 2, 2015), the Court STAYS this action. Six months from today’s date,

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE TOWER BUILDING
1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CA 94612
TEL: [phone]

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the foregoing stipulation of the parties

8

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC

7

and every six months thereafter while this stay is in effect, the parties shall file a short Joint

13

Status Report describing any pertinent developments in the cases identified above.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: December 10, 2015 ___

18
19
20

By:

__________________________________
The Honorable William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-

Stipulation and Order to Stay Case