Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06174/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06174-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn Riley
Plaintiff
Safeway Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

Case No. 07-CV-06174-JCS 

STIPULATION REQUESTING ORDER AMENDING 

CASE MGMT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

Shana E. Scarlett (Cal. Bar. No. 217895) 

715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 

Berkeley, CA 94710 

Telephone: (510) 725-3000 

Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 

shanas@hbsslaw.com 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

Elizabeth A. Fegan (pro hac vice) 

820 North Boulevard, Suite B 

Oak Park, IL 60301 

Telephone: (708) 776-5600 

Facsimile: (708) 776-5601 

beth@hbsslaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Shawn Riley 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Viviann C. Stapp (Cal. Bar No. 233036) 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

Telephone: (415) 391-0600 

Fax: (415) 395-8095 

Email: viviann.stapp@lw.com 

Mark S. Mester (Ill. Bar No. 6196140) (pro hac vice) 

Livia M. Kiser (Ill. Bar No. 6275283) (pro hac vice) 

233 South Wacker Drive 

Sears Tower, Suite 5800 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Telephone: (312) 876-7700 

Fax: (312) 993-9767 

Email: mark.mester@lw.com 

 livia.kiser@lw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Safeway Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SHAWN RILEY, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

 v. 

SAFEWAY INC., 

Defendant.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 3:07-cv-06174-JCS 

STIPULATION REQUESTING AN 

ORDER AMENDING THE CASE 

MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE 

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 1 of 19
1 

Case No. 07-CV-06174-JCS 

STIPULATION REQUESTING ORDER AMENDING 

CASE MGMT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

Pursuant to Civ. L. R. 6-2 and 16-2, Plaintiff Shawn Riley (“Plaintiff” or “Riley”) and 

Defendant Safeway Inc. (“Defendant” or “Safeway”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through 

their attorneys, submit the following as and for this Stipulation Requesting An Order Amending 

The Case Management Schedule: 

The above-captioned action is one of nineteen actions filed against Aurora Dairy 

Corporation, d/b/a Aurora Organic Dairy (“Aurora”) and/or several retailers who sell Aurora’s 

organic milk. See Dkt # 16 (Safeway Inc.’s Local Rule 3-13 Notice Of Pendency Of Other 

Actions Or Proceedings). 

On February 20, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“Multidistrict Panel”) 

issued an order transferring and consolidating four of those actions -- Freyre, et al. v. Aurora Dairy 

Corp. (D. Colo.), Still, et al. v. Aurora Dairy Corp. (D. Colo.); Fiallos v. Aurora Dairy Corp. (S.D. 

Fla.) and Mothershead, et al. v. Aurora Dairy Corp. (E.D. Mo.) -- in the Eastern District of 

Missouri. See Declaration of Kathleen P. Lally (“Lally Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. A (Transfer Order) at 7. In 

addition, the Multidistrict Panel identified eleven other actions -- including this action -- as 

“potential tag-along” actions. See id. at 5, n. 1. Accordingly, on February 26, 2008, the Clerk of 

the Multidistrict Panel issued a Conditional Transfer Order for this and the other previously 

identified “potential tag-along” actions. See Lally Decl. Ex. B (Conditional Transfer Order) at 

10-11. 

On February 22, 2008, in light of the Transfer Order issued by the Multidistrict Panel and 

the likely issuance of the conditional transfer order in this matter, the Parties agreed to stipulate to 

both an extension of time for conducting pre-trial matters and to seek an order postponing the Case 

Management Conference. See Lally Decl. ¶ 3. In light of the pending consolidation of this matter, 

the Parties agree that the Court should suspend pre-trial matters in this matter pending a transfer 

decision by the Multidistrict Panel. The Parties face a number of near-term deadlines, including 

engaging in preliminary discovery, defining the scope of electronic and other discovery and 

otherwise engaging in pre-trial activities. See Dkt # 2 (Order Setting Initial Case Management 

Conference And ADR Deadlines). Many of these issues, such as the Case Management 

Conference and pre-trial motion practice, implicate judicial and litigant resources. Accordingly, 

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 19
2 

Case No. 07-CV-06174-JCS 

STIPULATION REQUESTING ORDER AMENDING 

CASE MGMT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

this Court should enter the attached proposed order. See e.g., Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 

5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (vacating and ruling inter alia that scheduled case 

management conference be vacated where a “conditional order of transfer has been entered”). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Parties agree and respectfully request that all proceedings 

in this matter be suspended pending the resolution of the conditional transfer order to be issued by 

the Clerk of the Multidistrict Panel, transferring and consolidating this action with the 

consolidated proceedings In re Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Marketing and Sales Practices 

Litigation. The Parties further agree and respectfully request that the Court amend the Case 

Management Schedule to reflect the schedule proposed in the attached order, or for a reasonable 

period of time after a decision by the Multidistrict Panel, as the Court deems appropriate. 

ATTESTATION OF SIGNATURE 

Concurrence in filing this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. 

Dated: February 29, 2008 Respectfully submitted, 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Viviann C. Stapp 

/s/ 

By: ____________________________ 

Viviann C. Stapp 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Aurora Dairy Corporation 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

 Elizabeth A. Fegan 

/s/ 

By: ____________________________ 

 Elizabeth A. Fegan 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 Shawn Riley 

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 3 of 19
Case No. 07-CV-06174-JCS 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court having considered the Stipulation Requesting An Order Amending The 

Case Management Schedule and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

request is GRANTED. 

 The Case Management Schedule entered on December 5, 2007 be amended to 

reflect the following schedule: 

a. The Parties meet and confer regarding the initial disclosures, early settlement, 

ADR process selection, and discovery plan within twenty (20) days of the 

decision of the Multidistrict Panel; 

b. The Parties file Joint ADR Certification with Stipulation to ADR Process or 

Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference within twenty (20) days of the 

decision of the Multidistrict Panel; 

c. The Parties file Rule 26(f) Report, complete initial disclosures or state 

objection in Rule 26(f) Report and file Case Management Statement per 

attached Standing Order regarding Contents of Joint Case Management 

Statement within thirty-four (34) days of the decision of the Multidistrict Panel; 

and 

d. The Initial Case Management Conference be held within forty-four (44) days of 

the decision of the Multidistrict Panel. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

_______________________________________ 

Judge Samuel Conti 

United States District Judge

March 11, 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 4 of 19
Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 5 of 19
Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 6 of 19
Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 7 of 19
EXHIBIT A 

Exhibit A 04

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 8 of 19
 *

 Judge Heyburn took no part in the disposition of this matter.

 1 In addition to the four actions now before the Panel, the parties have notified the Panel of eleven

related actions pending, respectively, as follows: four actions in the District of Colorado, two actions

in the Northern District of California, and an action each in the Eastern District of Arkansas, the District

of Minnesota, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, and the Western

District of Washington. These actions and any other related actions will be treated as potential tagalong actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001). 

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: AURORA DAIRY CORP. ORGANIC 

MILK MARKETING AND SALES 

PRACTICES LITIGATION MDL No. 1907

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the entire Panel*

: Plaintiffs in the District of Colorado Freyre action have moved,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of this litigation in the District of Colorado. Defendant

in all actions, Aurora Dairy Corp. (Aurora), opposes plaintiffs’ motion but, alternatively, supports

selection of the District of Colorado as the transferee forum. Plaintiffs in the District of Colorado Still

action and two potential tag-along actions pending in the District of Colorado support centralization

in the District of Colorado. Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Missouri action support centralization

in the Eastern District of Missouri. 

This litigation currently consists of four actions listed on Schedule A and pending, respectively,

in the following three districts: two actions in the District of Colorado, and an action each in the

Southern District of Florida and the Eastern District of Missouri.1

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these four actions involve

common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Missouri

will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of

this litigation. Plaintiffs in all four actions, which are brought on behalf of putative nationwide classes,

contend that Aurora misled them into believing that the milk that they purchased was “organic” or

“USDA organic” when in fact the milk failed to meet organic standards, including those established

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the federal Organic Foods Production Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6501,

et seq. As a result, plaintiffs bring a variety of state law claims, asserting that, inter alia, they have paid

artificially high prices for Aurora’s organic milk. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate

duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly with respect to the issue of class

certification); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

Exhibit A 05

Feb 20, 2008

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 9 of 19
 - 2 -

Aurora opposes centralization, asserting that, inter alia, transfer of the actions under Section

1407 is unnecessary because voluntary alternatives to Section 1407 are superior. We respectfully

disagree. Transfer under Section 1407 has the salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before

a single judge who can formulate a pretrial program that: (1) allows discovery with respect to any noncommon issues to proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues, In re Joseph F. Smith Patent

Litigation, 407 F.Supp. 1403, 1404 (J.P.M.L. 1976); and (2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be

conducted in a streamlined manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the

overall benefit of the parties and the judiciary.

We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Missouri, where the first-filed action is pending,

is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Given the geographic dispersal of the constituent

actions and the potential tag-along actions, the Eastern District of Missouri offers a relatively

convenient forum for this litigation. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on

Schedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Missouri are transferred to the Eastern District

of Missouri and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable E. Richard Webber for

coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action listed on Schedule A and pending in

that district.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

_________________________________________

 D. Lowell Jensen 

 Acting Chairman

John G. Heyburn II, Chairman* J. Frederick Motz

Robert L. Miller, Jr. Kathryn H. Vratil

David R. Hansen Anthony J. Scirica

Exhibit A 06

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 10 of 19
IN RE: AURORA DAIRY CORP. ORGANIC 

MILK MARKETING AND SALES 

PRACTICES LITIGATION MDL No. 1907 

SCHEDULE A

District of Colorado

Rebecca Freyre, et al. v. Aurora Dairy Corp., C.A. No. 1:07-2183

Mona Still, et al. v. Aurora Dairy Corp., C.A. No. 1:07-2188

Southern District of Florida

Maya Fiallos v. Aurora Dairy Corp., C.A. No. 1:07-22748 

Eastern District of Missouri

Kristine Mothershead, et al. v. Aurora Dairy Corp., C.A. No. 4:07-1701 

Exhibit A 07

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 11 of 19
EXHIBIT B 

Exhibit B 08

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 12 of 19
Exhibit B 09

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 13 of 19
Exhibit B 10

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 14 of 19
Exhibit B 11

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 15 of 19
Exhibit B 12

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 16 of 19
Exhibit B 13

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 17 of 19
Exhibit B 14

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 18 of 19
Exhibit B 15

Case 3:07-cv-06174-SC Document 27 Filed 03/11/08 Page 19 of 19