Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01306/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01306-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

quantityof 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.

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 44 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 3 Case MDL No. 2725 Document 28 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 3
-2-

defendant 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 Charles A. Breyer 

Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle

R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 44 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 3 Case MDL No. 2725 Document 28 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 4:16-cv-01306-YGR Document 44 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 3 Case MDL No. 2725 Document 28 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 3