Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lewis v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, 1:16-cv-400 AWI SAB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160616c10 Visitors: 19
Filed: May 16, 2016
Latest Update: May 16, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY AND ORDER THEREON (DOC. No. 9) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY WHEREAS: (1) Plaintiff John Lewis filed his Class Action Complaint on March 23, 2016; and (2) The deadline for Defendant Kraft Heinz Company ("Kraft Heinz") to respond to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint is May 12, 2016; and (3) At least twenty other similar complaints have been filed against Kraft Heinz across the country, and plaintiffs in five of those cas
More

JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY AND ORDER THEREON

(DOC. No. 9)

JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY

WHEREAS:

(1) Plaintiff John Lewis filed his Class Action Complaint on March 23, 2016; and

(2) The deadline for Defendant Kraft Heinz Company ("Kraft Heinz") to respond to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint is May 12, 2016; and

(3) At least twenty other similar complaints have been filed against Kraft Heinz across the country, and plaintiffs in five of those cases filed petitions with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") seeking to centralize all of the Parmesan-related lawsuits against Kraft Heinz in a common jurisdiction; and

(4) The JPML has scheduled oral argument on those MDL petitions, In re: 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2705; In re: Kraft 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2707, as well as a related MDL petition, In re: Walmart Great Value 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL NO. 2708, on May 26, 2016 and will likely issue its decision regarding centralization in June 2016; and

(5) In light of the petitions before the JPML and the potential need to coordinate the related cases, the parties agree that a brief stay of proceedings pending the JPML's decision is appropriate because it would avoid the need for unnecessary and duplicative discovery and motion practice by the parties and conserve valuable judicial resources;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned counsel of record that this case be STAYED pending the JPML's ruling on MDL Petitions 2705, 2707, and 2708. The parties shall submit a joint status report to this Court within five (5) days of the JPML's ruling.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This matter is STAYED pursuant to the parties' stipulation;

2. The parties shall jointly inform the Court of any pertinent actions by the JPML; and

3. The parties shall file joint status reports at least every three (3) months.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer