Strumlauf et al v. Starbucks Corporation

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (7 in CAN/3:16-cv-01306, 8 in ILN/1:16-cv-04705, 16 in MDL No. 2725, 11 in NYS/1:16-cv-03496), ( 1 in MDL No. 2725) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 8/5/2016. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2725, CAN/3:16-cv-01306, ILN/1:16-cv-04705, NYS/1:16-cv-03496 (LAH)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: STARBUCKS CORPORATION MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2725

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Defendant Starbucks Corporation moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Western District of Washington. This litigation consists of three
actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, one related
action has been filed. Plaintiffs in all actions oppose centralization. Alternatively, plaintiffs
variously propose selection of the Northern District of California or the Northern District of Illinois.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Although the actions commonly allege that Starbucks misrepresents the
quantity of fluid ounces in made-to-order beverages sold in Starbucks stores, the actions concern two
distinct categories of Starbucks beverages – beverages made with steamed milk (latte and mocha
beverages) and beverages made with ice – which involve different factual theories of liability. Two
actions allege that latte and mocha beverages are underfilled based on recipes and equipment unique
to beverages made with steamed milk, and two actions allege that cold drinks are underfilled based
on practices unique to beverages made with ice. These factual dissimilarities likely will result in
discovery, pretrial motions, and class certification issues that are not shared across the beverage
categories. Moreover, the central allegation – misrepresentation of the fluid ounces in Starbucks
made-to-order beverages – does not appear complex.
Additionally, where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of
centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. See In re:
Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. (No. II), 753 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010). Moving defendant
has failed to do so here. There are only four actions in this litigation, including the potential tagalong action. Moreover, at oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel in the Northern District of California
action (Strumlauf) represented that plaintiff in the Southern District of New York action (Crittenden)
has agreed to transfer Crittenden to the Northern District of California, which will facilitate
coordination with the Strumlauf action pending there. Additionally, plaintiffs’ counsel in all actions
represented at oral argument that they will coordinate the depositions of defendant’s witnesses to
avoid any duplication and coordinate production of overlapping documents. Starbucks, the sole

*

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.

-2defendant in this litigation, is well-positioned to ensure the successful coordination of any
overlapping discovery.
Given the limited number of counsel and actions, the lack of complexity in the issues
presented, and the representations made at oral argument, informal cooperation among the parties
and the involved courts should be sufficient to minimize duplicative discovery and the risk of
inconsistent pretrial rulings. See 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).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles A. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: STARBUCKS CORPORATION MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2725

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
STRUMLAUF, ET AL. v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:16-01306
Northern District of Illinois
PINCUS v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:16-04705
Southern District of New York
CRITTENDEN v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:16-03496