Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al

Filing 203

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 153 Amended Complaint, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Memorandum of Law by New Albertson's Inc.. Responses due by 10/4/2007 (Kalil, Craig)

Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al

Doc. 203

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No.: 07-21221-CIV-ALTONAGA/TURNOFF RENEE BLASZKOWSKI, AMY HOLLUM, PATRICIA DAVIS, SUSAN PETERS, DEBORAH HOCK, MIKE FLOYD, BETH WILSON, CLAIRE KOTZAMPALTIRIS, DONNA HOPKINS-JONES, NICOLE PIAZZA, MARIAN LUPO, JANE HERRING, JO-ANN MURPHY, STEPHANIE STONE, PATRICIA HANRAHAN, DEBBIE RICE, ANN QUINN, SHARON MATHIESEN, SANDY SHORE, CAROLYN WHITE, LOU WIGGINS, MICHELLE LUCARELLI, RAUL ISERN, DANIELE VALORAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Class Representatives, vs. MARS, INC., MARS PETCARE US, INC., PROCTOR AND GAMBLE, CO., THE IAMS CO., COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, HILL'S PET NUTRITION, a Delaware Corporation, DEL MONTE FOODS, CO., NESTLE USA INC., NESTLE PURINA PETCARE CO., NESTLE S.A., NUTRO PRODUCTS INC., MENU FOODS, INC., MENU FOODS INCOME FUND, DOANE PET CARE ENTERPRISES, INC., PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., NEW ALBERTSON'S INC., ALBERTSON'S LLC, THE KROGER CO. OF OHIO, SAFEWAY INC., H. E. BUTT GROCERY COMPANY, MEIJER INC., MEIJER SUPER MARKETS, INC., THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., PET SUPERMARKET, INC., PET SUPPLIES "PLUS," PET SUPPLIES PLUS/USA INC., PETSMART INC., TARGET CORP., WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendants. /

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 2 of 16

DEFENDANT NEW ALBERTSONS, INC. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), defendant New Albertsons, Inc. ("New Albertsons"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves to dismiss the Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on the ground that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over New Albertsons. Defendant New Albertsons also adopts and incorporates by reference the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss being filed on behalf of all defendants on the grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing under Article III of the Constitution, that the Complaint fails state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that the Complaint fails to meet Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standards for causes of action sounding in fraud.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs' Complaint is virtually void of allegations pertaining to New Albertsons. 1 There is

only one substantive paragraph discussing the company. See Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint at ¶ 42 ("Compl. at ¶ __"). While that paragraph accurately states that New Albertsons is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Boise, Idaho, it incorrectly groups New Albertsons and Albertsons LLC into one collective entity described as "Albertson's" and asserts that both companies sell pet food in their "grocery stores in Florida and other states." Id. at ¶¶ 1, 42. This is incorrect. New Albertsons and Albertsons LLC are two completely separate entities and New Albertson's does not sell pet food, or any food for that matter, in the state of Florida. See Affidavit of Julie T. Backe at ¶ 4 ("Backe Aff. at ¶ __") (attached hereto as Exhibit A).

1

For example, the Complaint does not even allege that any of the individual plaintiffs purchased pet food at any store owned or operated by New Albertsons.

2

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 3 of 16

In June, 2006, the company formerly known as Albertson's, Inc., was sold to three separate entities: Supervalu, CVS and AB Acquisition LLC. See Affidavit of Daniel S. Day at ¶ 1. ("Day Aff. at ¶ ___") (attached hereto as Exhibit B). Albertsons stores in Southern California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming were acquired by Supervalu, through a wholly-owned subsidiary now called New Albertsons, Inc. See Backe Aff. at ¶ 3, Day Aff. at ¶ 2. Albertsons LLC, a subsidiary of AB Acquisition LLC, acquired Albertsons stores located in other parts of the county, including Florida. Day Aff. at ¶ 3. New Albertsons did qualify to do business in Florida in May of 2006, but apart from filing a statutorily required Uniform Business Report with the Florida Department of State, its only presence in the state of Florida is a registered agent. See Backe Aff. at ¶ 2. New Albertsons does not maintain an office or bank account in the state, nor does it have a single Florida employee. Backe Aff. at ¶ 5.
II. ARGUMENT

Federal courts may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if permitted by both (1) state law-- through the state long-arm statute--and (2) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Future Techn. Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 218 F.3d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000); Posner, et al. v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999); Sun Bank, N.A. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 926 F.2d 1030, 1034-35 (11th Cir. 1991); Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1517-19 (11th Cir. 1990). If Florida's statutory requirements pertaining to personal jurisdiction are met, the Court must determine if sufficient "minimum contacts" exist between a non-resident defendant and the forum to satisfy the due process clause. Future Techn., 218 F.3d at 1249; Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Under Florida law, a plaintiff asking a court to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant "must plead sufficient material facts to establish the basis for the exercise of such 3

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 4 of 16

jurisdiction." Future Techn., 218 F.3d at 1249 (quoting Prentice v. Prentice Colour, Inc., 779 F. Supp. 578, 583 (M.D. Fla. 1991)).
A. New Albertsons Is Not Subject To Personal Jurisdiction Under The Florida Long-Arm

Statute The Florida long-arm statute contains two provisions that confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. Section 48.193(1), Fla. Stat., confers specific jurisdiction if a claim "arises from" a defendant's specific forum-related contacts. See Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1). Under Florida law, there must be some "direct affiliation," "nexus," or "substantial connection" between the cause of action and the activities alleged within the state to support specific jurisdiction. Sun Trust Bank v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 184 F. Supp.2d 1246, 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (citations omitted). Section 48.193(2), Fla. Stat., authorizes Florida courts to exercise general jurisdiction if a defendant is engaged in "substantial and not isolated activity within [Florida] ... whether or not the claim arises from that activity." See Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2). General jurisdiction arises from a non-resident defendant's contacts with the forum that are unrelated to the cause of action being litigated. Consol. Dev. Corp. v. Sherritt Inc., 216 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2000). The only jurisdictional allegation pertaining to New Albertsons in the Complaint is a single, conclusory allegation that "Albertsons" sells pet food in their "grocery stores in Florida and other states." Compl. at ¶¶ 1, 42. The allegations stem from plaintiffs improper attempt to lump New Albertsons and Albertsons LLC into one entity. But New Albertsons and Albertsons LLC are two completely separate legal entities and New Albertsons does not conduct and has never conducted retail operations in the state of Florida. Backe Aff. at ¶ 4. Far from having "substantial and not isolated" contacts with Florida to support jurisdiction under § 48.193(2), New Albertsons has virtually no contact with Florida. New Albertsons does not sell, own or operate any Albertsons 4

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 5 of 16

stores in Florida, nor does it have an office in the state. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 5. The company does not have a bank account or any employees in Florida. Id. at ¶ 5. Moreover, § 48.193(1) of the long-arm statute does not provide a basis for specific jurisdiction. Although it is difficult to discern the legal theories behind plaintiffs' asserted causes of action, the core allegations stem from pet food advertising and sales practices. Plaintiffs appear to allege that the pet food industry erroneously advertises its dog and cat food products as healthy and nutritious without fully explaining the health effects of the ingredients disclosed. Thus, for a "causal nexus" to exist between plaintiffs' claims and New Albertsons, plaintiffs must, at a bare minimum, adequately allege that New Albertsons sells or advertises pet food in Florida. Future Tech., 218 F.3d at 1249 ("Plaintiff's burden in alleging personal jurisdiction is to plead sufficient material facts to establish the basis for exercise of personal jurisdiction"). New Albertsons does neither. Backe Aff. at ¶ 4.
B. New Albertsons Is Not Subject To General Personal Jurisdiction Under The Due

Process Clause Of The Constitution Because It Does Not Have "Continuous and Systematic" Contact With The State Of Florida As with § 48.193(2), general personal jurisdiction analysis under the due process clause is grounded upon the defendant's contacts with the forum unrelated to the litigation. The exercise of general jurisdiction comports with due process only if the defendant's contacts with the forum state are "continuous and systematic." Sea Lift, Inc. v. Refinadora Costarricense de Petroleo, S.A., 792 F.2d 989, 992 (11th Cir. 1986). Indeed, Florida courts have interpreted § 48.193(2)'s necessity of "substantial and not isolated activity" as synonomous with constitutional due process requirements of "continuous and systematic" contact with the forum state. Autonation, Inc. v. Whitlock, 2767 F.

5

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 6 of 16

Supp.2d 1258, 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2003) ("Florida courts have found `substantial and not isolated activity' to mean `continuous and systematic general business contact' with Florida). As explained supra, far from having "continuous and systematic" contact with Florida, New Albertsons has virtually no contact with Florida. Cf. Parker v. Century 21 Edwards Real Estate, 183 Fed. Appx. 869, 870-71 (11th Cir. June 8, 2006) (upholding dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction because, inter alia, defendant did not have offices in Florida, did not employ anyone in Florida, did not file taxes in Florida, and did not advertise or solicit business in Florida); Travel Opportunities of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. Walter Karl List Mgmnt., 726 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (complaint against New York corporation dismissed because it "ha[d] no physical presence in Florida; it ha[d] no offices, post office box, telephone, employees, bank account, or property of any kind in Florida. It [did] not solicit business in Florida"). The mere presence of a registered agent in the state does not alter the equation. The Eleventh Circuit, siding with other circuits that have addressed the issue, has held the appointment of a registered agent is insufficient to confer general personal jurisdiction over a corporation. See Consol. Dev., 216 F.3d at 1293, citing Bankhead Enterprises, Inc. v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 642 F.2d 802, 805 (5th Cir., Unit B, April 15, 1981); Wenche Siemer v. Learjet Acquisition Corp., 966 F.2d 179, 183 (5th Cir. 1992) ("To assert, as plaintiffs do, that mere service on corporate defendant automatically confers general jurisdiction displays a fundamental misconception of corporate jurisdictional principles ... A registered agent, from any conceivable perspective, hardly amounts to `the general business presence' of a corporation so as to sustain an assertion of general jurisdiction") (additional citations omitted). "The casual presence of a corporate agent in the forum is not enough to subject the corporation to suit where the cause of action is unrelated to the agent's 6

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 7 of 16

activities." Consol. Dev., 216 F.3d at 1293 (upholding District Court for the Southern District of Florida's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over foreign corporation where defendant had a registered agent and three contacts with the state of Florida) (citing Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 3170); see also Sofrar, S.A. v. Graham Engineering Corp., 35 F. Supp. 2d 919, 921 (S.D. Fla. 1999) (finding no general jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute, even though defendants appointed an agent for service of process and were registered to do business in the state). Here, New Albertsons is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Idaho. Backe Aff. at ¶ 1. While it qualified to do business in Florida on May 23, 2006, New Albertsons operates no Florida stores and has virtually no contacts with the state apart from having a registered agent and filing a statutorily required yearly Uniform Business Report with the Florida Department of State. Backe Aff. at ¶¶ 4, 5. This cannot be construed as consent on the part of New Albertsons to be sued by for any cause of action in Florida.
C. Subjecting New Albertsons To Specific Personal Jurisdiction Would Run Afoul Of The

Due Process Clause Because There Is No Causal Nexus Between New Albertsons Presence In The State Of Florida And The Allegations In The Complaint Specific jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible if a foreign defendant possesses sufficient minimum contacts with the forum to satisfy due process requirements, and if the forum's exercise of jurisdiction comports with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 3160 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). It is well established that the "minimum contacts" must stem from a party's activities in the forum state that are related to the cause of action alleged in the complaint. See Madara, 916 F.2d at 1516 n.7; Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (Plaintiffs' claims must "arise out of" or have a "causal nexus" with the defendant's conduct in the forum); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 7

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 8 of 16

U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (Defendant must have purposefully directed its activities toward the forum state and the plaintiff's alleged injuries must relate closely to the purposeful conduct). If the defendant's contacts with the forum state are related to the cause of action, courts must then determine whether the defendant "purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 253 (1958). Minimum contacts analysis is grounded in fairness and is designed to assure that "the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state [is] such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980); Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474. Here, there is no relation between New Albertsons contacts with Florida and plaintiffs' causes of actions. All of plaintiffs' claims relate to the sale and advertising of pet food products. As discussed, supra, New Albertsons does not conduct retail operations; much less sell pet food in Florida. New Albertsons virtually non-existent contacts with Florida are significantly more limited than in other cases where courts ruled that personal jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the due process clause. Madara, 916 F.2d at 1517 (eight performances, distribution of recordings and participation in partnership owning interests in Florida not sufficient); Pace v. Platt, No. 3:01-CV471/LAC, 2002 WL 32098709, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2002) (conducting three interviews in Florida and attendance at a legal hearing not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction). Moreover, New Albertsons could not reasonably have anticipated being haled into court in Florida and exercising personal jurisdiction would be inconsistent with considerations of fair play and substantial justice. Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316. The "fair play and substantial justice" prong of personal jurisdiction analysis require consideration of several factors: (1) the degree to which the 8

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 9 of 16

defendant has purposefully interjected itself in the forum state; (2) the burden of requiring the nonresident defendant to appear in the forum state; (3) the forum state's interest in the litigation; (4) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief in the forum; and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering substantive social policies. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113 (1987); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 444 U.S. at 292. As previously demonstrated, New Albertsons has not interjected itself into Florida. Backe Aff. at ¶¶ 3, 4. Although the Complaint erroneously lumps two separate entities together, New Albertsons does not own or operate any Albertsons stores in Florida and it would be a significant inconvenience to require New Albertsons to defend this action in Florida as New Albertsons maintains no office in the state. Backe Aff. at ¶¶ 4, 5. Finally, to the extent that Florida or plaintiffs have any interest in this litigation, that interest is satisfied by the presence of those entities that do conduct business in Florida, and plaintiffs' desire to turn a federal legal proceeding into a nationwide forum in which to air their grievances against an entire industry, and federal regulators, does not trump a defendant's constitutional guarantee of due process.

9

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 10 of 16

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, New Albertsons respectfully requests that the Court dismiss it from this action for lack of personal jurisdiction and for the reasons stated in the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of all defendants. Date: September 20, 2007. Respectfully submitted,

s/ Craig P. Kalil Craig P. Kalil, Esq. Fla. Bar. No. 607282 Joshua D. Poyer Fla. Bar. No. 653349 Aballí, Milne, Kalil & Escagedo, P.A. 2250 Sun Trust International Center One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 [e-mail] W. Randolph Teslik, Pro Hac VicePending [e-mail] Andrew J. Dober Pro Hac Vice Pending [e-mail] Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 202-887-4000 202-887-4288 Attorneys for NEW ALBERTSONS, INC. and ALBERTSONS, LLC

10

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 11 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction was filed with the Clerk of the Court by the CM/ECF filing system on September 20, 2007, which will send notice to all counsel or parties of record on the attached service list. s/ Craig P. Kalil Craig P. Kalil

11

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 12 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No.: 07-21221-CIV-ALTONAGA/TURNOFF SERVICE LIST RENEE BLASZKOWSKI, ET AL., VS. MARS, INCORPORATED, ET AL. Case No. 07-21221-CIV-ALTONAGA/TURNOFF Catherine J. MacIvor E-mail: [e-mail] Jeffrey Eric Foreman E-mail: [e-mail] Jeffrey Bradford Maltzman E-mail: [e-mail] Darren W. Friedman E-mail: [e-mail] MALTZMAN FOREMAN PA One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131-1803 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rolando Andres Diaz E-Mail: [e-mail] Cassidy Yen Dang E-mail: [e-mail] Maria Kayanan E-mail: [e-mail] KUBICKI DRAPER 25 W. Flagler Street Penthouse Miami, FL 33130-1712 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Pet Supermarket, Inc. Alexander Shaknes E-mail: [e-mail] Amy W. Schulman E-mail: [e-mail] Lonnie L. Simpson E-mail: [e-mail] S. Douglas Knox E-mail: [e-mail] DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Attorneys for Defendants Menu Foods, Inc. and Menu Foods Income Fund 12 John B.T. Murray, Jr. SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. 1900 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6198 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., PetSmart, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 13 of 16

Hugh J. Turner, Jr. AKERMAN SENTERFITT 350 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1600 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2229 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Publix Super Markets, Inc. Omar Ortega DORTA AND ORTEGA, P.A. Douglas Entrance 800 S. Douglas Road, Suite 149 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Mars, Incorporated and Mars Petcare U.S. Sherril M. Colombo COZEN O'CONNOR Wachovia Center, Suite 4410 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Del Monte Foods, Co.

Marty Steinberg E-mail: [e-mail] Adriana Riviere-Badell E-mail: [e-mail] HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP Mellon Financial Center 1111 Brickell Avenute, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (305 810-2460 Attorneys for Defendant Nutro Products, Inc. John J. Kuster E-mail: [e-mail] James D. Arden E-mail: [e-mail] SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Company and Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. Charles Philip Flick E-mail: [e-mail] Kathleen S. Phang E-mail: [e-mail] SEIPP, FLICK & KISSANE Two Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33134-5241 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Target Corp.

13

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 14 of 16

Alan G. Greer RICHMAN GREER, P.A. Miami Center ­ Suite 1000 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Procter & Gamble Co. and The Iams Co. D. Jeffrey Ireland E-mail: [e-mail] Brian D. Wright E-mail: [e-mail] Laura A. Sanom E-mail: [e-mail] FARUKI IRELAND & COX P.L.L. 500 Courthouse Plaza, S.W. 10 North Ludlow Street Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Defendant Procter & Gamble Co. and The Iams Co. Benjamine Reid E-mail: [e-mail] Olga M. Vieira E-mail: [e-mail] CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 4000 Bank of America Tower at International Place Miami, Florida 33131-9101 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Company and Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.

Carol A. Licko HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. Mellon Financial Center 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Nestle USA, Inc. Nestle Purina Petcare Co. and Nestle S.A. Robin L. Hanger SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard 40th Floor Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc.

Richard Fama E-mail: [e-mail] John J. McDonough E-mail: [e-mail] COZEN O'CONNOR 45 Broadway New York, New York 10006 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Del Monte Foods

14

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 15 of 16

Thomas G. Hentoff E-mail: [e-mail] Dane H. Butswinkas E-mail: [e-mail] Christopher M. D'Angelo E-mail: [e-mail] Patrick J. Houlihan E-mail: [e-mail] Philip A. Sechler E-mail: [e-mail] WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 200005 Attorneys for Defendants Mars, Incorported and Mars Petcare U.S. John F. Mullen COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Del Monte Foods, Co. Gary L. Justice E-mail: [e-mail] Charles H. Abbott E-mail: [e-mail] Gail E. Lees E-mail: [e-mail] William Edward Wegner E-mail: [e-mail] GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Nutro Products, Inc.

Kara L. McCall SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Company and Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.

William C. Martin DLA PIPER LLP 203 North LaSalle Street Suite 1900 Chicago, Illinois 60601-1293 E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Menu Foods, Inc. and Menu Foods Income Fund Ralph G. Patino E-mail: [e-mail] Dominick V. Tamarazzo E-mail: [e-mail] Carlos B. Salup E-mail: [e-mail] PATINO & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 225 Alcazar Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants Pet Supplies "Plus" and Pet Supplies Plus/USA, Inc.

15

Case 1:07-cv-21221-CMA

Document 203

Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2007

Page 16 of 16

Robert C. Troyer HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. 1200 17th Street One Tabor Center, suite 1500 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Nestle USA, Inc. Nestle Purina Petcare Co. and Nestle S.A. Robert Valadez E-mail: [e-mail] Javier Thomas Duran E-mail: [e-mail] SHELTON & VALADEZ, P.C. 600 Navarro, Suite 500 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant H.E. Butt Grocery Co. Marcus D. Jimenez KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. 1100 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Safeway, Inc. and The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company

Craig A. Hoover E-mail: [e-mail] Miranda L. Berge E-mail: [e-mail] HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. 555 13TH Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants Nestle USA, Inc. Nestle Purina Petcare Co. and Nestle S.A. James K. Reuss LANE ALTON & HORST, LLC Two Miranova Place Suite 500 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant The Kroger Co. of Ohio

16