Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06449/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06449-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn Otto
Plaintiff
Elizabeth Park
Plaintiff
Welch Foods Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

1

Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG

ORDER GRANTING 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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ELIZABETH PARK, ET AL.

 

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELCH FOODS INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STAY

(Re: Docket No. 75)

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Park and Carolyn Otto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, and Defendant Welch Foods, Inc. jointly 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.2and Kosta v. 

Del Monte Foods, Inc.3 The stay is GRANTED and all currently scheduled hearings in this case 

are vacated.

 

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).

Case 3:12-cv-06449-MEJ Document 77 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG

ORDER GRANTING 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

For the Northern District of California

I.

Plaintiffs challenge various labels on Welch Foods’ products as misleading4and seek class 

certification of 

All persons in the State of California who, from December 20, 2008 until the date 

of class notice, who purchased one or more of the following Welch Food, Inc., 

products:

 Welch’s 100% Fruit Juices

 Welch’s Natural Spreads5

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is fully briefed,6as is Welch Foods’ motion for partial 

summary judgment. Both motions are scheduled to be heard on October 28, 2015.7 However, 

three cases currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit raise issues that may affect certification in 

this case, and so the parties jointly move to stay pending resolution of those appeals. Brazil raises 

issues of the appropriate damages model;8Jones addresses Rule 23’s ascertainability and 

predominance requirements, standing requirements under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, and 

the appropriate damages theory;9and Kosta also involves questions of ascertainability and 

materiality.10

II.

The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). 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).11

 

4

See Docket No. 36 at 1.

5

See Docket No. 57 at ii.

6

See Docket Nos. 57, 62, 66.

7

See Docket Nos. 63, 72, 73.

8

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

9

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

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

11 See Docket Nos. 28, 29.

Case 3:12-cv-06449-MEJ Document 77 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG

ORDER GRANTING 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

For the Northern District of California

“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.”12

III.

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

First, little or no possible damage will result from granting the stay, which the parties 

jointly request. In contrast, the parties might suffer hardship if required to proceed with their case. 

The parties would expend significant time and resources arguing the class certification and 

summary judgment motions, which will be wasted effort if the Ninth Circuit’s rulings change the 

requirements for class certification, standing, and damages in food labeling class actions. For 

example, the parties likely would have to redo depositions and class certification briefing. 

Similarly, a stay would promote the orderly course of justice. Welch Foods raised issues of 

ascertainability, materiality, and predominance and challenged Plaintiffs’ damages theory in 

opposing class certification,13 and all of these issues are raised by the Brazil, Jones, and Kosta

appeals. Given the overlap between the issues in those cases and this case, “guidance from the 

Ninth Circuit will aid in the orderly, just resolution of this case.”14 All three factors favor a stay.

IV.

The parties’ motion to stay the case is GRANTED. 

 

12 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).

13 See Docket No. 75 at 6.

14 Leonhart v. Nature’s Path Foods, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-00492-BLF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

73269, at *11 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2015).

Case 3:12-cv-06449-MEJ Document 77 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:12-cv-06449-PSG

ORDER GRANTING 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

For the Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2015 

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:12-cv-06449-MEJ Document 77 Filed 10/22/15 Page 4 of 4