Darren Eisenlord v. The Quaker Oats Company et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (3 in CAC/2:16-cv-01442, 3 in ILN/1:16-cv-03087, 5 in MDL No. 2718, 3 in NJ/1:16-cv-01944), ( 1 in MDL No. 2718) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 6/2/2016. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2718, CAC/2:16-cv-01442, ILN/1:16-cv-03087, NJ/1:16-cv-01944 (JG)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: QUAKER OATS MAPLE & BROWN
SUGAR INSTANT OATMEAL MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2718

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in the Northern District of Illinois action moves under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. This
litigation concerns whether Quaker Oats Maple and Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal products1 actually
contain maple syrup or maple sugar. Plaintiff’s motion encompasses the three actions in three
districts listed on Schedule A, as well as a potential tag-along action pending in the Northern District
of Illinois.
No party opposes centralization. Plaintiffs in the District of New Jersey action and the
Northern District of Illinois potential tag-along action support the motion. Plaintiffs in the Central
District of California action support centralization in the Central District of California. Defendant
The Quaker Oats Co. (Quaker) supports centralization in the Central District of California or,
alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois or the District of New Jersey.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
is not necessary to serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These putative nationwide class actions without doubt share some factual
questions, but we find that those questions are neither sufficiently complex nor numerous to justify
centralization. These cases concern the allegedly misleading nature of defendants’ oatmeal labels,
which plaintiffs argue contains a picture of maple syrup but lacks actual maple syrup or maple sugar
as an ingredient. These cases more closely resemble the straightforward food and beverage

*

Judges Lewis A. Kaplan, Ellen Segal Huvelle, and Catherine D. Perry did not participate
in the decision of this matter. Additionally, certain Panel members who could be members of the
putative classes in this litigation have renounced their participation in these classes and have
participated in this decision.
1

Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal, Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar
High Fiber Instant Oatmeal, Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar Gluten Free Instant Oatmeal,
Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Lower Sugar Instant Oatmeal, Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar
Weight Control Instant Oatmeal, and Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar Organic Instant Oatmeal.

-2marketing and sales practices dockets that we have declined to centralize2 than those involving more
complex and numerous factual questions that we have centralized.3 Centralization is not needed to
further the just and efficient conduct of these few, relatively uncomplicated cases.
We note that alternatives to centralization, such as voluntary cooperation and coordination
among the parties and the three involved courts, are available to minimize any potential duplication
in discovery or judicial efforts. See, e.g., In re: Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent
Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,
§ 20.14 (2004). Further, though we express no opinion on the viability of such relief, the parties may
wish to consider seeking a stay, dismissal or transfer of the later-filed cases under the “first-to-file
rule” to streamline this litigation.4

2

See, e.g., In re: Nutella Mktg. and Sales Pracs. Litig., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (J.P.M.L.
2011) (denying centralization of three nationwide class actions in two districts concerning “alleged
misrepresentations of Nutella as a healthy and nutritious food”); In re: Skinnygirl Margarita
Beverage Mktg. and Sales Pracs. Litig., 829 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (denying
centralization of six nationwide class actions in six districts where “the central allegation that
Skinnygirl Margarita beverage was marketed as being all natural despite some level of sodium
benzoate appears to be undisputed”); In re: Kashi Co. Mktg. and Sales Pracs. Litig., 959 F. Supp.
2d 1357 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (denying centralization where no party opposed centralization in S.D.
California of four nationwide class actions in two districts alleging the presence of allegedly
inappropriate terms “evaporated cane juice” or “evaporated cane juice crystals” in numerous
products).
3

See, e.g., In re: L’Oreal Wrinkle Cream Mktg. and Sales Pracs. Litig., 908 F. Supp 2d 1381
(J.P.M.L. 2012) (“Plaintiffs contend that defendants made numerous representations about the
effectiveness of the products’ anti-aging and restorative properties that were either not sufficiently
supported, misleading or false.”); In re: Tropicana Orange Juice Mktg. and Sales Pracs. Litig., 867
F.Supp. 2d 1341 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (“These actions share factual questions arising out of allegations
that Tropicana deceptively markets its not-from-concentrate orange juice as “100% Pure & Natural
Orange Juice,” when in fact the orange juice is extensively processed. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia,
that Tropicana deoils, deaerates, and pasteurizes its orange juice, then stores the juice in refrigerated
tanks for long periods of time, and adds chemically-engineered substances to mimic the flavor of
“natural” orange juice.”); In re: Whole Foods, Inc., Greek Yogurt Mktg. and Sales Pracs. Litig., 65
F. Supp. 3d 1395 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (“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.”).
4

The “first-to-file rule” is a doctrine of federal comity, pursuant to which, “‘when related
cases are pending before two federal courts, the court in which the case was last filed may refuse to
(continued...)

-3IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
R. David Proctor

4

Charles R. Breyer

(...continued)
hear it if the issues raised by the cases substantially overlap.’” In re: Spillman Dev. Group, Ltd., 710
F.3d 299, 307 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603
(5th Cir.1999)).

IN RE: QUAKER OATS MAPLE & BROWN
SUGAR INSTANT OATMEAL MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2718

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
EISENLORD v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-1442
Northern District of Illinois
ALIANO v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16-3087
District of New Jersey
GATES v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16-1944