Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01891/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01891-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No. 5:12-cv-01891-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STAY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARAH SAMET, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KELLOGG COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01891-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 

MOTION TO STAY

(Re: Docket No. 156)

Plaintiffs Sarah Samet and Robert Figy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, move to stay this case pending resolution of the appeals of Brazil v. Dole Food Company, 

Inc., et al.,

1

Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,

2

and Kosta v. Del Monte Foods, Inc.3 Plaintiffs’ 

motion is GRANTED-IN-PART: the case is stayed, with the exception of the question of whether 

Plaintiffs have standing to bring their case. 

I.

Plaintiffs challenge various labels on Defendants’ products as misleading and seek class 

certification.

4

 Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is partially briefed.

5 However, three cases 

currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit raise issues that may affect certification in this case, 

 

1 Case No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. filed Dec. 17, 2014).

2 Case No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. filed July 15, 2014).

3 Case No. 15-16974 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 2, 2015). 

4

See Docket No. 131.

5

See Docket Nos. 131, 146-4, 148.

Case 3:12-cv-01891-RS Document 167 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:12-cv-01891-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STAY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and so Plaintiffs move to stay pending resolution of those appeals. Brazil raises issues of the 

appropriate damages model;6Jones addresses Rule 23’s ascertainability and predominance 

requirements and the appropriate theory of restitution and damages;

7 Kosta also involves questions 

of ascertainability and materiality.8

II.

The court has subject matter and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1367. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).9

“In considering whether a stay is appropriate, the Court should weigh three factors: [1] the

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a 

party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in

terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

expected to result from a stay.”10

III.

Applying the standard as set out above, the stay is granted-in-part as follows.

First, the first and second factors weigh against imposing a stay. In terms of possible 

damage, a stay would delay the resolution of this case, which has already been pending for more 

than three and a half years. As for the hardship of going forward, the parties have partially briefed

the issue of class certification,

11 conducted extensive fact and expert discovery,12 deposed lay and 

 

6

See Case No. 14-17480 (9th Cir. filed Dec. 17, 2014).

7

See Case No. 14-16327 (9th Cir. filed July 15, 2014).

8

See Case No. 15-16974 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 2, 2015).

9

See Docket Nos. 6, 68.

10 Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04537-LHK, 2014 WL 6986421, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 

10, 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (brackets in original).

11 See Docket Nos. 131, 146, 148.

Case 3:12-cv-01891-RS Document 167 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:12-cv-01891-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STAY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

expert witnesses,

13 and engaged in related motion practice.14

 To the extent that Plaintiffs argue 

that “parties would expend significant time and resources”

15 if required to go forward, those are 

sunk costs. 

The parties dispute whether the third factor favors a stay. Plaintiffs argue that Brazil, 

Jones, and Kosta may provide guidance on their claim for damages, which is currently in

dispute,

16 as well as questions of ascertainability, materiality, and predominance.17

 However, 

Defendants raise challenges that are unique to this case. Namely, they challenge Plaintiffs’

standing,18 which is a long-settled doctrine not at issue in the Ninth Circuit appeals. Because 

standing is a discrete issue that can be resolved without reference to the outcomes in Brazil, Jones, 

and Kosta, and because it is “an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy 

requirement”

19

necessary for this court to have jurisdiction, the third factor weighs against staying 

resolution of the standing question. On balance, the three factors weigh against a blanket stay.

IV.

The court recognizes that several food labeling cases have recently been stayed pending 

the Brazil, Jones, and Kosta appeals, and that this case thus is an outlier. However, the stayed 

cases differ from this case because of the unique threshold question of Plaintiffs’ standing and 

because of the procedural posture of the stayed cases. While those cases were stayed either by 

 

12 See Docket No. 160 at 7.

13 See id.

14 See Docket Nos. 147, 151, 152.

15 See Docket No. 156 at 7.

16 See Docket No. 156 at 7; see also Docket Nos. 142, 145, 154.

17 See Docket No. 156 at 6-7.

18 See Docket No. 146-4 at 19; Docket No. 148 at 9-11.

19 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

Case 3:12-cv-01891-RS Document 167 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:12-cv-01891-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STAY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

unopposed requests20 or before the parties had gone to the expense and effort of fully briefing 

class certification,21 Defendants here oppose Plaintiffs’ request22 and the parties have filed the 

motion for class certification and the oppositions.23 Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the case therefore is 

GRANTED-IN-PART. The case is stayed, except the question of Plaintiffs’ standing. Plaintiffs 

shall file the reply to their motion for class certification by November 25, 2015, and limit it to the 

standing issues raised in Defendants Procter & Gamble Co., Kellogg Co., and Kellogg Sales Co.’s 

opposition briefs.24 Following Plaintiffs’ reply, the court shall take the standing question under 

submission and issue a separate order. The court may schedule the matter for hearing if it finds

that oral argument would be helpful.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

20 See Thomas et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 5:12-cv-02908-BLF, 2015 WL 6674696 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2015) (granting unopposed request for stay); Park et al. v. Welch Foods Inc.,

Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG, Docket No. 77 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2015) (same); Swearingen v. 

ConAgra Foods, Inc., Case No. C13-05322, Docket No. 36 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2015) (same); Allen 

v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:13-CV- 01279-VC, Docket No. 152 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (same).

21 See Pardini v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-01675-SC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

49752, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2015) (granting stay requested before plaintiff moved for class 

certification); Leonhart v. Nature’s Path Foods, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00492-BLF, 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 73269, *9 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2015) (same); Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., Case No. 13-CV04537-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171736 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014) (same); see also Wilson v. 

Frito-Lay North Am., Inc., Case No. 12-CV-1586 SC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94179, at *5 (N.D. 

Cal. July 20, 2015) (granting stay requested before defendant opposed class certification).

22 See Docket No. 160.

23 See Docket Nos. 131, 146-4, 148.

24 See Docket No. 146-4 at 19; Docket No. 148 at 9-11.

Case 3:12-cv-01891-RS Document 167 Filed 11/10/15 Page 4 of 4