Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE COCA-COLA PRODUCTS 

MARKETING AND SALES 

PRACTICES LITIGATION (No. II)

This document relates to all actions. 

Case No. 14-md-02555-JSW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 

Re: Dkt. No. 220 

Now before the Court for consideration is Defendants’ motion to stay these proceedings 

pending a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Defendants’ 

motion for permission to appeal this Court’s Order granting, in part, and denying, in part, 

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (“Class Certification Order”). The Court has considered 

the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it finds the motion is 

suitable for disposition without oral argument.1

 See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES 

the hearing set for April 24, 2020, and it HEREBY DENIES Defendants’ motion. 

Because the facts underlying the merits of the dispute are set forth in the Court’s Class 

Certification Order, the Court shall not repeat them here. The Court will address additional 

relevant facts in the analysis. 

ANALYSIS 

Defendants move to stay pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which permits 

a party to appeal an order granting or denying class-certification. However, “[a]n appeal does not 

stay proceedings in the district court unless the district court or the court of appeals so orders.” Id. 

1

 Defendants did not file a reply within the time period permitted under the Northern District 

Civil Local Rules, and they did not seek to extend that deadline. 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 225 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 Californi

a

The Court considers the following four factors in determining whether to grant a motion to stay: 

“(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the 

merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of 

the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the 

public interest lies.” Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)). These factors are examined on a flexible “continuum,” which 

is “essentially the same thing as the ‘sliding scale’ approach” applied to requests for preliminary 

injunctions. Id. at 964-66. Accordingly, “the elements . . . are balanced, so that a stronger 

showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Id. at 964. 

On the first factor, Defendants need not show that it is “more likely than not” that they will 

prevail on appeal. Rather, Defendants must show they have a “substantial case for relief on the 

merits,” which the Ninth Circuit has variously defined as a “reasonable probability,” a “fair 

prospect,” or that “serious legal questions are raised.” Id. at 967-68. “A party meeting this lower 

threshold is not required to show that it is more likely than not to win on the merits ... but must 

then demonstrate that the balance of hardships under the second and third factors tilts sharply in its 

favor.” Morse v. Servicemaster Global Holdings, Inc., No. 10-cv-0628-SI, 2013 WL 123610, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (citations omitted).2 

Defendants argue the Court misapplied Davidson v. Kimberly Clark, 889 F.3d 956, 967 

(9th Cir. 2018) and that its decision is legally at odds with other district courts within the Ninth 

Circuit. As the Court noted a key factual dispute in this case is whether phosphoric acid is or is 

not an artificial flavor or preservative as it is used in Coke. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ challenges to 

Coke’s labels are not limited to whether they comply with FDA regulations. Plaintiffs contend the 

labels are misleading because they suggest Coke does not contain artificial flavors or 

preservatives. Unlike the cases on which Defendants rely to demonstrate a split in authority, the 

Court determined that, on the facts of this case, that was not an issue that could be resolved simply 

2

 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments, the fact that the Court issued a Phase III scheduling 

Order was not an indication of its views of the merits of this motion. The Court simply concluded 

an in-person case management conference hearing was not necessary. 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 225 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 Californi

a

by reviewing the information currently contained on the labels.3 The Court finds Defendants’ 

arguments on the issue of whether Plaintiffs will be able to put forth evidence of materiality on a 

class-wide basis to be similarly unpersuasive. 

Accordingly, the Court finds the first factor does not weigh in favor of a stay. Further, 

even if the Court were able to conclude that Defendants had raised “serious legal questions,” for 

the reasons that follow, the Court would find that the balance of hardships under the remaining 

factors do not tilt “sharply” in favor of a stay. 

As to the second factor, Defendants argue they would be harmed if they must proceed with 

Phase III discovery, which they contend will be hotly disputed. Defendants do not address the fact 

that Plaintiffs have pursued common law claims. The Court denied the motion to certify classes 

on those claims, but they are still a part of this litigation. With respect to the third factor, the harm 

to Plaintiffs, this case is one of the older cases on the Court’s docket. The parties have not yet 

started discovery on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims; further delays “may compromise Plaintiffs’ 

ability to call relevant witnesses,” and witnesses’ “memories may fade.” Andrews v. Plains All Am. 

Pipeline, L.P., No. CV 15-4113 PSG (JEMx), 2018 WL 4191409, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2018) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Finally, the Court concludes the fourth factor, the public interest, is neutral. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for a stay pending the 

resolution of its motion for permission to appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 26, 2020 

______________________________________ 

JEFFREY S. WHITE 

United States District Judge 

3

 Defendants also did not argue that Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief based on the 

phrase “original formula” and on the “Pemberton Claim” were moot. 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 225 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 3