Kosta v. Del Monte Corporation

Filing 93

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 50 Motion for Collateral Estoppel.The Court VACATES the hearing set for May 28, 2013. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

MICHAEL KOSTA, STEVE BATES,
individuals, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

8

Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 12-cv-01722-YGR
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (DKT. NO. 50)

9

vs.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

DEL MONTE CORPORATION,

12

Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Pending before the Court is the Motion of Plaintiffs Michael Kosta and Steve Bates
(“Plaintiffs”) for “Application of Collateral Estoppel.” (Dkt. No. 50.) Having carefully considered
the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice
for the reasons stated herein.1
The motion essentially asks that this Court make findings of fact on certain claims based
upon a jury verdict in case by a different plaintiff against Defendant Del Monte Corporation (“Del
Monte”) alleging similar misbranding issues as to Del Monte’s Fruit Bowls, Fruit Naturals,
Superfruit, and SunFresh product lines.
Plaintiffs argue that the motion is not a Rule 56 motion for summary adjudication. The
argument is unconvincing. Plaintiffs do not cite, and there does not appear to be, any other
procedural vehicle that would allow such a ruling at this point in the case. Since the motion was
not brought as a Rule 56 motion, Plaintiffs have side-stepped the applicable Federal Rules
applicable to such motions, as well as this Court’s Standing Order In Civil Cases which limits

27
1

28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES
the hearing set for May 28, 2013.

1

summary judgment motions and sets forth additional pre-filing and filing requirements. Moreover,

2

Del Monte argues that it should be afforded the opportunity to seek a continuance in order to take

3

discovery, as it would have been permitted under Rule 56(d).

4

More importantly, in this class action, a decision on the merits of a claim at this point in the
case would run afoul of the rule against one way intervention. “A largely settled feature of state

6

and federal procedure is that trial courts in class action proceedings should decide whether a class is

7

proper and, if so, order class notice before ruling on the substantive merits of the action.” Fireside

8

Bank v. Sup. Ct., 40 Cal. 4th 1069, 1074 (2007) (emphasis added). The rule “stands as a barrier

9

against ‘one-way intervention,’ whereby not-yet bound absent plaintiffs may elect to stay in a class

10

after favorable merits rulings but opt out after unfavorable ones.” Id. The purpose of Rule 23(c)(2)

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

is to ensure that the plaintiff class receives notice of the action well before the merits of the case are

12

adjudicated.” Schwarzschild v. Tse, 69 F.3d 293, 295 (9th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original).

13

Plaintiffs concede that the issues herein are not properly decided prior to the Court’s

14

consideration of class certification, but suggest that the Court should nevertheless consider briefing

15

and hear argument on the collateral estoppel issue now. (See Plaintiffs’ Reply, Dkt. No. at 1:19-23

16

and 3:13-16.) The Court declines the suggestion. The motion is DENIED without prejudice to

17

raising the collateral estoppel issue after consideration of class certification and completion of any

18

discovery necessary to resolution of the issue. Plaintiffs are cautioned that any future motion for

19

summary judgment or adjudication must comply with this Court’s Standing Order.

20

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 50.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: May 17, 2013

____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2