Chas Jackson et al v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

Filing 32

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 2 in MDL No. 2588), ( 1 in MDL No. 2588) Transferring 4 action(s) to Judge Sam Sparks in the W.D. Texas.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 12/10/2014. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2588, CAC/2:14-cv-06705, FLM/8:14-cv-01892, MA/1:14-cv-13185, NYS/1:14-cv-07035 (TB)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., GREEK YOGURT
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2588

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in an action (Knox) pending in the District of Massachusetts
move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district. The litigation consists of
the four actions listed on Schedule A: the Knox action and actions pending in the Central District of
California, the Middle District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York, respectively.1
All parties support centralization, but there is disagreement regarding the choice of an
appropriate transferee district. The Whole Foods defendants2 support selection of the Western
District of Texas, or, in the alternative, the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiffs in the three other
constituent actions and four potential tag-along actions support centralization in the Western District
of Texas, or, in the alternative, the Southern District of New York.3
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we are persuaded that
centralization under Section 1407 in the Western District of Texas will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions, all
of which are putative class actions, share factual issues arising from highly similar allegations that
Whole Foods 365 Greek Yogurt contains much more sugar than stated on its label, that defendants’
marketing of the Yogurt was false and deceptive, and that defendants were negligent in testing the
Yogurt, and in ensuring that the label was accurate. Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve
the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

*

Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

The Panel has been informed of six additional related federal actions. These actions and any
other related federal actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.
2

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Whole Foods Market Private Label, L.P., Whole Foods
Market California, Inc., WFM-WO, Inc., and Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc.
3

The actions of these tag-along plaintiffs are pending in the District of Arizona, the District
of New Jersey, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Western District of Texas. The brief of
the Arizona plaintiff does not propose an alternative to the Western District of Texas.

-2After weighing the relevant factors, we select the Western District of Texas as transferee
district for this litigation. The record shows that all defendants are headquartered in this district, and
thus many witnesses and relevant documents are likely to be found there. Further, the Honorable
Sam Sparks, to whom we assign the litigation, is an experienced jurist, and we have no doubt that
he will steer this MDL on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Western District of Texas are transferred to the Western District of Texas, and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable Sam Sparks for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

IN RE: WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., GREEK YOGURT
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2588

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
JACKSON, ET AL. v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., C.A. No. 2:14-06705
Middle District of Florida
MARKLEY v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., C.A. No. 8:14-01892
District of Massachusetts
KNOX, ET AL. v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., C.A. No. 1:14-13185
Southern District of New York
GRODNICK, ET AL. v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET INC., C.A. No. 1:14-07035