Park et al v. Welch Foods Inc.

Filing 77

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 75 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13

ELIZABETH PARK, ET AL.

14

Plaintiffs,

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
WELCH FOODS INC.,

17

Defendant.

18
19

Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY
(Re: Docket No. 75)

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Park and Carolyn Otto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly

20

situated, and Defendant Welch Foods, Inc. jointly move to stay this case pending resolution of the

21

appeals of Brazil v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al.,1 Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.2 and Kosta v.

22

Del Monte Foods, Inc.3 The stay is GRANTED and all currently scheduled hearings in this case

23

are vacated.

24
25

1

Case No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. filed Dec. 17, 2014).

26

2

Case No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. filed July 15, 2014).

27

3

Case No. 15-16974 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 2, 2015).

28

1
Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

1

I.
Plaintiffs challenge various labels on Welch Foods’ products as misleading4 and seek class

2
3

certification of

4
5

All persons in the State of California who, from December 20, 2008 until the date
of class notice, who purchased one or more of the following Welch Food, Inc.,
products:

6



Welch’s 100% Fruit Juices

7



Welch’s Natural Spreads5

8

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is fully briefed,6 as is Welch Foods’ motion for partial

9

summary judgment. Both motions are scheduled to be heard on October 28, 2015.7 However,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

three cases currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit raise issues that may affect certification in

11

this case, and so the parties jointly move to stay pending resolution of those appeals. Brazil raises

12

issues of the appropriate damages model;8 Jones addresses Rule 23’s ascertainability and

13

predominance requirements, standing requirements under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, and

14

the appropriate damages theory;9 and Kosta also involves questions of ascertainability and

15

materiality.10

16

II.

17

The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The parties consented

18

to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

72(a).11

20

4

See Docket No. 36 at 1.

21

5

See Docket No. 57 at ii.

22

6

See Docket Nos. 57, 62, 66.

23

7

See Docket Nos. 63, 72, 73.

24

8

See Case No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. filed Dec. 17, 2014).

9

See Case No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. filed July 15, 2014).

25
26

10

See Case No. 15-16974 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 2, 2015).

11

See Docket Nos. 28, 29.

27
28

2
Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

“In considering whether a stay is appropriate, the Court should weigh three factors: [1] the

1
2

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a

3

party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in

4

terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

5

expected to result from a stay.”12

6

III.

7

Applying the standard as set out above, the stay is granted as follows.

8

First, little or no possible damage will result from granting the stay, which the parties

9

jointly request. In contrast, the parties might suffer hardship if required to proceed with their case.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The parties would expend significant time and resources arguing the class certification and

11

summary judgment motions, which will be wasted effort if the Ninth Circuit’s rulings change the

12

requirements for class certification, standing, and damages in food labeling class actions. For

13

example, the parties likely would have to redo depositions and class certification briefing.

14

Similarly, a stay would promote the orderly course of justice. Welch Foods raised issues of

15

ascertainability, materiality, and predominance and challenged Plaintiffs’ damages theory in

16

opposing class certification,13 and all of these issues are raised by the Brazil, Jones, and Kosta

17

appeals. Given the overlap between the issues in those cases and this case, “guidance from the

18

Ninth Circuit will aid in the orderly, just resolution of this case.”14 All three factors favor a stay.

19

IV.
The parties’ motion to stay the case is GRANTED.

20
21
22
23
24
25

12

Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04537-LHK, 2014 WL 6986421, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
10, 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (brackets in original).
13

26

See Docket No. 75 at 6.

14

27

Leonhart v. Nature’s Path Foods, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-00492-BLF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
73269, at *11 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2015).

28

3
Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

1

SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: October 22, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY