IN RE: Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Juice Blend Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: MINUTE MAID POMEGRANATE
BLUEBERRY FLAVORED JUICE BLEND
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION MDL No. 2593
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: Defendants The Minute Maid Company and The Coca-Cola Company*
(collectively, Coca-Cola) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation consists of two actions pending in the
Central District of California and the Northern District of Florida, as listed on Schedule A. Plaintiffs
in both actions oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation. These actions unquestionably share some common factual questions relating to
plaintiffs’ allegations that Coca-Cola’s labeling and marketing for its “Pomegranate Blueberry
Flavored Blend of 5 Juices” (the Juice) is misleading because it suggests that the Juice is primarily
composed of pomegranate and blueberry juices, when in fact the predominant juices in the product
by volume are apple and grape juices. We are not convinced, though, that these common issues are
sufficiently complex or numerous to warrant the creation of an MDL. There is no dispute over the
ingredients of the Juice, only whether its labeling and marketing are deceptive with respect to those
ingredients. Centralization is unnecessary for such a straightforward marketing and sales practices
docket. See, e.g., In re Kashi Co. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 959 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1358
(J.P.M.L. 2013) (denying centralization of cases alleging that defendant misleadingly listed
“evaporated cane juice” or “evaporated cane juice crystals” on the labels of certain products).
Furthermore, 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). Coca-Cola has
not met that burden here. Besides the relative simplicity of the factual issues, only two actions are
at issue. These actions do not involve overlapping putative classes—each is limited to consumers
residing in either California or Florida. Thus, the potential for inconsistent pretrial rulings is greatly
diminished. Also, the first-filed Saeidian action has been pending for more than five years, and
much (if not all) of the discovery in that action has been completed. To the extent there is any
possibility of duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial rulings, voluntary cooperation and
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.*
Case MDL No. 2593 Document 20 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 3

-2-
coordination among the parties and the involved courts is a preferable alternative to centralization.
See, e.g., 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 R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor
Catherine D. Perry
Case MDL No. 2593 Document 20 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 3

IN RE: MINUTE MAID POMEGRANATE
BLUEBERRY FLAVORED JUICE BLEND
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION MDL No. 2593
SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
SAEIDIAN v. THE COCA COLA COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:09-06309
Northern District of Florida
STANSFIELD, ET AL. v. MINUTE MAID COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:14-00290
Case MDL No. 2593 Document 20 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 3