Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al

Filing 575

REPLY to Response to Motion re 545 MOTION to Strike 543 Notice (Other) and Accompanying Memorandum of Law filed by Natura Pet Products, Inc.. (Giel, Michael)

Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al

Doc. 575

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 07-21221-CIV-ALTONAGA/BROWN

RENEE BLASZKOWSKI, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MARS, INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO NATURA PET PRODUCTS, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION TO REPLY BRIEF AND CROSS-MOTION TO ALLOW LEAVE TO FILE Natura Pet Products, Inc., ("Natura") hereby replies to plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections to Reply Brief and Cross-Motion to Allow Leave to File Objection ("Opposition to the Motion to Strike") [D.E. 567]. I. INTRODUCTION. The Court should strike the Evidentiary Objection by Plaintiffs to Natura Pet Products, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion For Summary Judgment Against NonNatura Plaintiffs Linda Brown, et al. ("Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply") [D.E. 543] because it fails to specify the evidence to which it objects and constitutes an impermissible sur-reply. Not until the Opposition to the Motion to Strike do Plaintiffs identify the "evidence" that Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply purports to object. The allegedly objectionable evidence consists of three pleadings, all of which were prepared and filed by Plaintiffs. Two of the pleadings were specifically identified in Natura's Request for Judicial Notice [D.E. 515-2] filed concurrently with the underlying Motion for Summary Judgment, and were, therefore, not raised for the first time in Natura's Reply Brief [D.E. 534]. The third pleading at

Dockets.Justia.com

issue was utilized to directly refute an argument raised in Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E. 528]. As such, Natura's reliance upon it was proper. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have no valid grounds to pose evidentiary objections to Natura's Reply Brief. In addition, Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply is also improper because it cites and discusses case authorities that do not pertain to the admissibility of evidence, but attempt to attack legal argument contained in Natura's Reply Brief. Plaintiff's Sur-Reply is not an evidentiary objection, but is, in fact, an impermissible sur-reply and must be stricken. II. NATURA'S REPLY EVIDENCE. BRIEF DOES NOT INCLUDE IMPROPER

In the Opposition to the Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs identify for the first time the evidence to which the Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply allegedly objects. The "evidence" identified as objectionable in the Opposition to the Motion to Strike is Natura's reference to: 1. Fourth Amended Complaint [D.E. 349]; 2. Plaintiffs' Notice of Pending and Dismissed Claims [D.E. 494]; and 3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [D.E. 518]. It is with great irony that Plaintiffs now object to the Court's consideration of the above three documents since they were all prepared and filed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cannot argue that they were caught of guard by the contents of those papers. Indeed, two of the three documents identified above were specifically included in Natura's Request for Judicial Notice [D.E. 515-2] filed concurrently with the underlying Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim that the Fourth Amended Complaint [D.E. 349] and Notice of Pending and Dismissed Claims [D.E. 494] are new evidence offered for the first time in Natura's Reply is simply false. The reference to Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is specifically raised to rebut the validity of Plaintiffs' contention, raised in the Opposition to the Motion to for Summary Judgment, that Paragraphs 3 through 32 of the Fourth Amended Complaint

2

exclusively control which Plaintiffs asserted claims against Natura. If it were true that Plaintiffs believed that Paragraphs 3 through 32 controlled, then Plaintiffs would have never filed Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. Accordingly, reference to

Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is offered only to rebut issues raised in Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to for Summary Judgment, and is, thus, proper to raise in a reply brief pursuant to Local Rule 7.1. III. NATURA'S REPLY BRIEF DOES NOT INTRODUCE NEW ISSUES. Natura's Reply Brief rebuts Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion to for Summary Judgment by illustrating the absurdity of the arguments it puts forth. Plaintiffs Linda Brown, Tone Gaglione, Jane Herring, Deborah Hock, Raul Isern, Claire Kotzampaltiris, Michele Lucarelli, Marian Lupo, Sharon Mathiesen, Deborah McGregor, Julie Nelson, Ann Quinn, Marlena Rucker, Sandy Shore, Stephanie Stone, Beth Wilson, Patricia Hanrahan, Donna Hopkins-Jones, Danielle Valoras, Carolyn White, and Lou Wiggins' acknowledgment that no Natura products are identified in the Fourth Amended Complaint among the lists of pet food that they allegedly purchased does nothing to create the needed certainty regarding pending claims against Natura because Plaintiffs JoAnn Murphy, Susan Peters, Cindy Tregoe, and Jennifer Damron, who pursued claims against Natura also did not include Natura products in their lists of alleged purchases in the Fourth Amended Complaint. The issue of whether Paragraphs 3 through 32 of the Fourth Amended Complaint controls which Plaintiffs have claims against Natura was raised by Plaintiffs, not Natura. Therefore, Natura's discussion and rebuttal of that issue in its Reply Brief is both necessary and appropriate under Local Rule 7.1. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in Natura's Motion to Strike, Natura respectfully requests that the Evidentiary Objection by Plaintiffs to Natura Pet Products, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion For Summary Judgment Against Non-

3

Natura Plaintiffs Linda Brown, Et. Al. ("Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply") [D.E. 543] be stricken, and that this Court deny Plaintiffs' request in the alternative for leave to file a sur-reply [D.E. 567]. McGUIREWOODS LLP By: s/Michael M. Giel Jeffrey S. York Florida Bar No. 0987069 Michael M. Giel Florida Bar No. 0017676 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 [phone] [phone] (fax) [e-mail] [e-mail]

and HENDERSON, CAVERLY, PUM & CHARNEY LLP Kristen E. Caverly Admitted Pro Hac Vice Robert C. Mardian III Admitted Pro Hac Vice Post Office Box 9144 Rancho Sante Fe, California 92067 [phone] [phone] (fax) [e-mail] [e-mail] ATTORNEYS AND TRIAL COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT NATURA PET PRODUCTS, INC.

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 8, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the counsel so indicated on the attached Service List. s/Michael M. Giel Attorney

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RENEE BLASZKOWSKI, ET AL., VS. MARS, INCORPORATED, ET AL. Case No. 1:07-21221-CIV-ALTONAGA/TURNOFF SERVICE LIST

Catherine J. MacIvor, Esquire Jeffrey Eric Foreman, Esquire Jeffrey Bradford Maltzman, Esquire Darren W. Friedman, Esquire Bjorg Eikeland MALTZMAN FOREMAN PA One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131-1803 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Patrick N. Keegan, Esquire Jason E. Baker, Esquire KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 640 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs John B.T. Murray, Jr., Esquire 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] Attorneys for Defendants PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., PetSmart, Inc., Wal-Mart

6

Stores, Inc., Target Corporation and Meijer, Inc. Rolando Andres Diaz, Esquire Peter S. Baumberger, Esquire KUBICKI DRAPER 25 W. Flagler Street Penthouse Miami, FL 33130-1712 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Pet Supermarket, Inc. Lonnie L. Simpson, Esquire S. Douglas Knox, Esquire DLA PIPER LLP 100 N. Tampa Street Suite 2200 Tampa, Florida 33602-5809 [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Menu Foods, Inc. and Menu Foods Income Fund Alexander Shaknes, Esquire DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1104 [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Menu Foods, Inc. and Menu Foods Income Fund Hugh J. Turner, Jr., Esquire AKERMAN SENTERFITT 350 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1600 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2229 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Publix Super Markets, Inc and H.E. Butt Grocery Co.

7

Gary L. Justice, Esquire Gail E. Lees, Esquire Omar Ortega, Esquire DORTA AND ORTEGA, P.A. Douglas Entrance 800 S. Douglas Road, Suite 149 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Mars, Incorporated, Mars Petcare U.S., and Nutro Products, Inc. Benjamine Reid, Esquire Olga M. Vieira, Esquire 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] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Company and Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. John J. Kuster, Esquire James D. Arden, Esquire SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Company and Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. Kara L. McCall, Esquire SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Company and Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.

8

Marcos Daniel Jiménez, Esquire Robert J. Alwine II, Esquire 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 LLC Sherril M. Colombo, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR Wachovia Center, Suite 4410 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Del Monte Foods, Co. Richard Fama, Esquire John J. McDonough, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 45 Broadway New York, New York 10006 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Del Monte Foods John F. Mullen, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Del Monte Foods, Co.

9

Carol A. Licko, Esquire HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. Mellon Financial Center 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Nestlé USA, Inc. and Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. Robert C. Troyer, Esquire HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. 1200 17th Street One Tabor Center, suite 1500 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Nestlé USA, Inc. and Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. Craig A. Hoover, Esquire Miranda L. Berge, Esquire E. Desmond Hogan, Esquire HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. 555 13TH Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Nestlé USA, Inc. and Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. Alan G. Greer, Esquire RICHMAN GREER, P.A. Miami Center ­ Suite 1000 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Procter & Gamble Co. and The Iams Co.

10

D. Jeffrey Ireland, Esquire Brian D. Wright, Esquire Laura A. Sanom, Esquire FARUKI IRELAND & COX P.L.L. 500 Courthouse Plaza, S.W. 10 North Ludlow Street Dayton, Ohio 45402 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Procter & Gamble Co. and The Iams Co. Robin L. Hanger, Esquire SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard 40th Floor Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. Ralph G. Patino, Esquire Dominick V. Tamarazzo, Esquire Carlos B. Salup, Esquire PATINO & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 225 Alcazar Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Pet Supplies "Plus" and Pet Supplies Plus/USA, Inc. Robert Valadez, Esquire Javier Thomas Duran, Esquire SHELTON & VALADEZ, P.C. 600 Navarro, Suite 500 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail]

11

[e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant H.E. Butt Grocery Co. Craig P. Kalil, Esquire Joshua D. Poyer, Esquire ABALLI, MILNE, KALIL & ESCAGEDO, P.A. 2250 Sun Trust International Center One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants New Albertson's Inc. and Albertson's LLC W. Randolph Teslik, Esquire Andrew Dober, Esquire AKIN GUMPSTRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants New Albertson's Inc. and Albertson's LLC Jason Joffe, Esquire SQUIRE SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 4000 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Meijer, Inc.

\6810988.1

12