Maggio v. The Procter & Gamble Company

Background

Breanne Maggio sued The Procter & Gamble Company and Rainforest Alliance. The opinion text states that Maggio seeks certification of a nationwide class. Procter & Gamble asked the court to stay, or pause, the case while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered a motion to transfer and coordinate related cases for pretrial proceedings.

The provided text includes Maggio’s opposition to the stay and the court’s order. Maggio argued that her case differed from the six other cases involved in the proposed coordination. Among other differences, her case included claims involving Rainforest Alliance, which was not a defendant in those other cases, and sought a nationwide class rather than the narrower state or multistate classes sought in the other cases. She also argued that her case was further along, that the proposed coordination involved too few cases to justify an MDL proceeding, and that discovery could be coordinated without a stay.

Arguments About Delay

Maggio stated that Procter & Gamble had filed a motion to dismiss, Rainforest Alliance had filed a motion to dismiss and an Anti-SLAPP motion, and she had already filed one response addressing those motions. According to Maggio, Rainforest Alliance had not requested a stay and the main apparent benefit of delay to Procter & Gamble would be additional time to prepare its reply supporting its motion to dismiss.

Maggio also argued that the Judicial Panel might deny the proposed coordination, that the panel was not scheduled to consider the request for several weeks, and that this court could decide issues unique to the case before any transfer. She further argued that proceeding would not unduly burden Procter & Gamble or harm the courts, other litigants, or the public. Her discussion of possible harm to consumers and the proposed class was presented as her argument, not as a factual finding by the court.

Ruling

The court denied The Procter & Gamble Company’s request to stay the case pending the panel’s resolution of the motion to transfer. The order states that Procter & Gamble had not established good cause warranting a stay at that time. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Number 36, the docket entry associated with the stay request.

This order addressed only the request for a stay. Based on the provided text, Judge John P. Cronan did not rule on the pending motions to dismiss, the Anti-SLAPP motion, the proposed class, or whether the case should ultimately be transferred for coordinated proceedings.