Adam Parker et al v. Monavie Inc et al

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (18 in CAC/5:12-cv-01983, 20 in MDL No. 2778, 13 in NJ/2:13-cv-04649, 13 in UT/2:14-cv-00395), ( 2 in MDL No. 2778), ( 1 in MDL No. 2778) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 5/31/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2778, CAC/5:12-cv-01983, NJ/2:13-cv-04649, UT/2:14-cv-00395 (CMD)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: MONAVIE JUICE PRODUCTS MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2778

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Consumer plaintiffs in a District of New Jersey action and a Central
District of California action move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District
of Utah or, alternatively, another district in which an action is pending. Plaintiff in the District of
Utah action, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, opposes the motion. Defendants MonaVie, Inc.
and MonaVie, LLC (collectively, MonaVie) also oppose centralization. This litigation consists of
three actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A.
After considering all argument of counsel, we conclude that Section 1407 centralization of
this litigation is not necessary. The actions here involve common factual issues arising from
MonaVie’s marketing of its juice products. Plaintiffs in the two consumer actions contend that
MonaVie falsely represented that its various products possessed healing properties and other healthenhancing benefits. Plaintiff Starr, which entered into two Directors and Officers insurance policies
with MonaVie, asserts that its policies do not cover the other actions in this litigation based on
certain exclusions in the policies. In litigation such as this, where only a few 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 plaintiffs have failed to do so here.
This litigation involves three actions filed in three districts between November 2012 and May
2015. Two of the three actions are procedurally advanced. Class certification has been denied twice
in the Central District of California action, which is on the verge of trial, and in the District of Utah
action, a motion for entry of default is pending because MonaVie is no longer represented by
counsel. Consequently, we see few pretrial efficiencies to be gained by centralizing these actions.
The consumer plaintiffs seem to be seeking centralization to obtain a resolution of the
insurance coverage dispute before they proceed with their individual cases. They contend that the
Starr policies likely are MonaVie’s only remaining assets available to pay their claims. Even so, it
is unclear why the consumer plaintiffs waited until late-February 2017 to seek centralization of these
cases, despite presumably being aware of MonaVie’s insolvency and looming foreclosure by at least
May 2015. Regardless, cooperation and coordination among the few involved courts and counsel
in this litigation appears feasible. The judges presiding over the consumer actions simply may find
*

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.

-2it advisable to stay those actions pending the resolution of the insurance coverage dispute or
otherwise coordinate their rulings. We often have held that cooperation among a few involved courts
and counsel regarding discovery (such as on coverage issues or other matters here) is a preferable
alternative to centralization.1 Finally, plaintiff in the Central District of California’s pending motion
to transfer the action to the District of Utah under Section 1404 action carries the added potential to
streamline this litigation without resort to the Section 1407 framework.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for Section 1407 centralization of the
actions listed on Schedule A is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

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

1

Charles R. Breyer
R. David Proctor

See, e.g., In re: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 763
F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (denying centralization of four actions in which plaintiffs in three
actions shared counsel and concluding that alternatives to formal centralization, such as voluntary
cooperation among the few involved counsel and courts appeared viable).

IN RE: MONAVIE JUICE PRODUCTS MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
PARKER, ET AL. v. MONAVIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:12!01983
District of New Jersey
PONTRELLI v. MONA VIE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:13!04649
District of Utah
STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY v. MONAVIE, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:14!00395

MDL No. 2778