Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: JCCP5317, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: JCCP5317 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: 11
HAIN CELESTIAL BABY FOOD CASES (JCCP 5317)
Tentative Ruling Re: Petition for Coordination
Date: 5/9/24
Time: 2:30
pm
Moving Party: N.C., et al.
(collectively “Petitioners” or “Plaintiffs”)
Opposing Party: None
Department: 11
Judge: David
S. Cunningham III
________________________________________________________________________
TENTATIVE RULING
Petitioners’ petition for coordination is granted. The Court recommends the Los Angeles
Superior Court as the site for the coordination proceedings, and the recommended reviewing court is the
Second District Court of Appeal.
Landon R. v. Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., case number 23STCV24844 (Los Angeles Superior Court), is
included in the coordination.
Whether N.C. v. Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., case number 21STCV22822 (Los Angeles Superior Court), should
be included in the coordination will be decided at the hearing.
BACKGROUND
Petitioners submitted a petition to the Chairperson of the
Judicial Council for pretrial coordination of six cases pending in Los Angeles
County and one case pending in Alameda County (the “Included Actions”):
* N.C. v. Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., case number 21STCV22822 (Los Angeles Superior Court);
* Pourdanesh v. Gerber
Products Company, case number 23STCV02484 (Los Angeles Superior Court);
* Paul L. v. Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., case number 23STCV24710 (Los Angeles Superior Court);
* Josue G. v. Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., case number 23STCV29046 (Los Angeles Superior Court);
* Princeton N.C. v. Hain
Celestial Group, Inc., case number 23STCV29035 (Los Angeles Superior
Court);
* Kaleb R. v. Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., case number 23STCV30542 (Los Angeles Superior Court); and
* Samuel R. v. Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., case number 23CV057126 (Alameda Superior Court).
The Included Actions are individual
actions. The complaints allege that
Plaintiffs were exposed to heavy metals – e.g., lead, arsenic, and mercury –
when they consumed baby foods as infants.
Plaintiffs claim the alleged exposures caused brain injuries.
Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et
al. (collectively “Defendants”) support Petitioners’ petition, but they ask the
Court to add another Los Angeles case – Landon R. v. Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., case number 23STCV24844 (Los Angeles Superior Court) – to the
coordination.
The Chief Justice and Chair of the
Judicial Council issued an order assigning this Court to sit as the
coordination motion judge to determine whether the Included Actions are complex
and, if so, whether coordination is appropriate.
DISCUSSION
I. Complex Determination
Only “complex”
cases may be coordinated. (Edmon &
Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group June
2023 Update) ¶ 12:374.5.) A “complex”
case requires “exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary
burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs
reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties,
and counsel.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.400(a).)
In deciding whether an action is a complex case under
(a), the Court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely
to involve:
(1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel
legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;
(2) Management of a large number of witnesses or a
substantial amount of documentary evidence;
(3) Management of a large number of separately
represented parties;
(4) Coordination with related actions pending in one or
more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or
(5) Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.
(Id. at rule 3.400(b).)
[A]n action is provisionally a complex case if it
involves one or more of the following types of claims:
(1) Antitrust or trade regulation claims;
(2) Construction defect claims involving many parties or
structures;
(3) Securities claims or investment losses involving many
parties;
(4) Environmental or toxic tort claims involving many
parties;
(5) Claims involving mass torts;
(6) Claims involving class actions; or
(7) Insurance coverage claims arising out of any of the
claims . . . .
(Id. at rule 3.400(c).)
The
Los Angeles cases and Landon R. have already been deemed complex and
related. They are pending in a complex
courtroom in Los Angeles before Judge Lawrence Riff.
The
Alameda case – Samuel R. – appears to be complex as well. The Court is
persuaded that it will involve similar discovery, complicated procedural
issues and motions, numerous witnesses, and a substantial amount of documentary
evidence.
Rule 3.400 is satisfied.
II. Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.1
Section
404.1 states that a petition for coordination should be granted if doing so
will “promote the ends of justice,” taking into account the following seven
factors:
[W]hether
the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the
litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses and counsel; the relative
development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient
utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts;
the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or
judgments; and the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further
litigation should coordination be denied.
(Code Civ.
Proc. § 404.1.)
A. Predominating Common
Questions
This factor favors
coordination. The Included Actions and Landon
R. concern similar products and allege similar facts and causes of action. All or most Defendants are named in each
complaint. Because of this, common
questions predominate as to whether, for example, Defendants’ products were
defective and harmed Plaintiffs. (See Memorandum
of Points and Authorities (“MP&A”), pp. 12-13 [listing additional common
questions].) These questions should be
heard by one judge to ensure uniformity.
There is a potential caveat. As noted below in section II.C., N.C.
is far more advanced than the other cases.
The Court expects Petitioners’ counsel to address the status of N.C.
at the hearing.
B. Convenience of the Parties, Witnesses, and
Counsel
This factor favors
coordination. Six of the Included
Actions and Landon R. are pending in Los Angeles in front of the same
judge. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are the
same in all cases. The defense attorneys
are mostly the same in all cases. (See
Esfandiary Decl., Attach. 1.) There will
be similar (perhaps identical) corporate witnesses. Managing discovery and deciding the common
issues and claims in one forum would convenience the parties, their witnesses,
and their counsel, and it will advance efficiency. (See MP&A, p. 13.)
C. Development of the Cases and the Work
Product of Counsel
It appears that Judge Riff resolved N.C. via summary judgment in
September 2023 and that he entered judgment on October 26, 2023. (See 10/26/23 N.C. Judgment, p. 1.)
The other Included Actions and Landon R. are at much earlier
stages. They were all filed between June
and December 2023.
On balance, this factor favors coordination; however, during oral
arguments, Petitioners’ counsel needs to discuss N.C.’s status and explain
why it should remain part of the coordination.
D. Efficient
Use of Judicial Resources and Manpower
This factor favors coordination. Absent coordination, separate courts would
have to duplicate case efforts on the same issues and claims. Parallel litigation of the same issues and claims in multiple locations
would result in unnecessary consumption of judicial resources.
E. Calendars
of the Courts
This factor is neutral. Petitioners’ brief fails to address the
congestion levels of the specific, individual court calendars.
F. Duplicative and Inconsistent Rulings
This factor favors coordination.
Since the Included Actions and Landon R. raise the same or
similar issues and claims regarding Defendants’ products, there is a risk that
the courts would make duplicative or inconsistent key rulings. Coordination should lower this risk and
advance the goal of “uniform and centralized resolution on appeal.” (McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court
(1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 814.)
G. Likelihood
of Settlement in the Absence of Coordination
Petitioners contend:
Generally, coordination assists in the
settlement process because the parties . . . are forced to create organized
plans for mediation or settlement. If
experience is a guide, coordination will not only lead to greater efficiencies
in the litigation process, it will also lead to coordinated settlement
discussions.
(MP&A, p. 14.)
This factor is neutral or favors
coordination. The inquiry is not whether
coordination would promote settlement; it is whether settlement is expected
“without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code Civ. Proc. §
404.1.) The Court’s understanding is
that no case has settled so far. Nothing
in the record suggests that Defendants intend to settle prior to filing
discovery motions and, possibly, motions for summary judgment. Some additional litigation seems probable.
The Court reiterates that a
caveat might exist as to N.C.
Petitioners’ counsel must address N.C. at the hearing.
H. Landon
R.
In the moving brief, Petitioners contend the Court should exclude Landon
R. from the coordination. They claim
Landon R. is a preference case and “is slated to be on an expedited
trial schedule[.]” (MP&A, p. 3.)
Defendants disagree. They assert
that Landon R. “has no trial date, much less an imminent one, and is in
no way ready for trial[.]” (Response to
Petition, p. 2.)
In reply, Petitioners contend the issue of whether to coordinate Landon
R. should be deferred to Judge Riff because:
* a preference motion is pending in Landon R. (see Reply to
Petition, pp. 1, 5-6);
* a motion to set an October 2024 trial date in Landon R. is also
pending (see ibid.); and
* “the parties agreed at the outset of Landon R. that the other
cases sought to be coordinated and pending before Judge Riff [should] be stayed
to focus litigation efforts on working up Landon R. as the bellwether
case in this mass tort” (id. at pp. 1-2, underling of case name added; see also
id. at pp. 5-6.)
The Court agrees with Defendants. To date, the preference motion is undecided,
and there is no trial date set. Under
the current circumstances, it is appropriate to coordinate Landon R.
given the predominating common issues and other similarities.
Moreover, adding Landon R. to the coordination will not prevent
Judge Riff from managing Landon R. and the Included Actions as he sees
fit. He will retain discretion to use all
complex management tools – e.g., the powers to stay, bifurcate, and utilize the
bellwether process – in all eight cases.
The coordination mechanism is well suited to handle the situation where
it becomes necessary to expedite one of the coordinated actions (if it becomes
necessary).
I. Summary
The coordination factors support coordination. The Court finds that the petition for
coordination should be granted and that Landon R. should be included in
the coordination.
The Court will make a final decision on N.C.
at the hearing.
III. Site for the Coordinated Proceedings
Rule of
Court 3.530(b) sets forth the factors that the coordination motion judge may
consider in making a recommendation for the site of the coordination
proceedings. The factors include: the
number of included actions in particular locations; whether the litigation is
at an advanced stage in a particular court; the efficient use of court
facilities and judicial resources; the locations of witnesses and evidence; the
convenience of the parties and witnesses; the parties’ principal places of
business; the office locations of counsel for the parties; and the ease of
travel to and availability of accommodations in particular locations. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.530(b).)
Based on the
weight of the factors, the Court recommends the Los Angeles Superior
Court. The first-filed case and seven of
the eight cases are pending here. The
Los Angeles Superior Court's complex program has sufficient resources and expertise to
manage the Included Actions. Also, apart from the availability of
remote appearances on LACourtConnect, it is a convenient and accessible
location.
The Court
recommends the Second District Court of Appeal as the reviewing appellate court.