Dyke v. Colgate-Palmolive Company

Filing 14

TRANSFER ORDER (MDL No 2320). Signed by Kathryn H. Vratil, Acting Panel Chairman on 3/7/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Case MDL No. 2320 Document 41 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: COLGATE-PALMOLIVE SOFTSOAP
ANTIBACTERIAL HAND SOAP MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2320

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff in an action pending in the
Southern District of Illinois moves to centralize this litigation in that district. The motion
encompasses that action and six others: two in the Southern District of Florida, and one each in the
Central District of California, the Northern District of Illinois, the District of New Hampshire, and
the District of Nevada, as listed on Schedule A. The Panel has been notified of two additional related
actions.1
Plaintiffs in five constituent actions support centralization in the Southern District of Illinois,
as does plaintiff in a Middle District of Florida potential tag-along action. Plaintiff in the first-filed
Central District of California Nieblas action, however, opposes centralization. If the Panel orders
centralization over her objections, the Nieblas plaintiff urges selection of the Central District of
California as transferee district. Common defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company (Colgate) supports
centralization, but it argues in favor of selection of the Southern District of New York as transferee
district.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these seven actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of New
Hampshire will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. The subject actions share factual issues arising from allegations that
Colgate’s claims about the benefits of using its Softsoap Antibacterial hand soaps are deceptive and
misleading, that no reliable clinical studies have shown that Colgate’s representations regarding these
soaps are true, and that safety concerns have been raised with respect to triclosan, the active
ingredient in the soaps. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other pretrial issues, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
*

Judge John G. Heyburn II and Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr., took no part in the disposition
of this matter. Judge Paul J. Barbadoro took no part in the decision to centralize this litigation in the
District of New Hampshire.
1

These actions and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2.

Case MDL No. 2320 Document 41 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 3

-2In opposing centralization, the Nieblas plaintiff argues that the factual issues in these actions
are insufficiently complex. The Panel decisions to which she cites, however, involved both fewer
actions and more straightforward issues than those present here. E.g., In re: Nutella Mktg. & Sales
Practices Litig., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (denying centralization of three actions
involving factual issues as to whether the defendant had misrepresented its hazelnut spread as healthy
and nutritious).
We conclude that the District of New Hampshire is an appropriate transferee district for
pretrial proceedings in this litigation. A constituent action is pending in that district, and Judge Paul
J. Barbadoro, who previously handled MDL No. 1335, In re: Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative & “ERISA” Litigation, has the experience to guide this new MDL on a prudent course.
Furthermore, MDL No. 2263, In re: Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, which
involves issues that appear similar to those in this docket, is also pending in the District of New
Hampshire,2 and thus our decision here may facilitate coordination between the two dockets.3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the District of New Hampshire are transferred to the District of New
Hampshire and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Paul J. Barbadoro for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district and listed on
Schedule A.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Kathryn H. Vratil
Acting Chairman
Barbara S. Jones
Marjorie O. Rendell

2

Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer

See In re: Dial Complete Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L.

2011).
3

We leave determinations regarding the necessity and extent of any such coordination to the
two transferee judges. See In re: Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
Litig., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (“Our decision to centralize these actions in no
way dictates or even suggests the particular manner or course of [pretrial] proceedings; consistent
with our typical practice, we leave those determinations to the transferee judge.”).

Case MDL No. 2320 Document 41 Filed 03/07/12 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: COLGATE-PALMOLIVE SOFTSOAP
ANTIBACTERIAL HAND SOAP MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2320

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
Tracy Nieblas, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, et al., C.A. No. 8:11-00438
Southern District of Florida
Jeffrey Rosen v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, C.A. No. 0:11-62242
Shari Elstein v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, C.A. No. 9:11-81165
Northern District of Illinois
Kristina Pearson v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, C.A. No. 1:11-06086
Southern District of Illinois
Adam Emery v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, C.A. No. 3:11-00797
District of Nevada
Jeff Dyke v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, C.A. No. 2:11-01750
District of New Hampshire
John Katsigianis v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, C.A. No. 1:11-00427