IN RE: S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. WINDEX NON-TOXIC LITIGATION

Background

Plaintiffs Michelle Moran and Monica Waddell brought consolidated actions against S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. They alleged that the company falsely or misleadingly labeled certain Windex products as having a “non-toxic formula,” even though the products contained ingredients toxic to humans, animals, and/or the environment. Their claims included violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. They also sought to represent a nationwide class and a California consumer subclass.

A separate class action, Clark v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., was filed in Alameda Superior Court. It involved the same products, similar allegations, the same California statutes and warranties, and the same proposed nationwide class and California subclass. The parties in that case reached a settlement agreement that included a $1.3 million settlement fund and an agreement concerning “non-toxic” labeling for products with their current formulations. The Alameda court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing on final approval for December 7, 2021.

S.C. Johnson moved to stay, or pause, this federal case until the Alameda court ruled on final approval. It argued that an approved settlement could resolve this case for class members who did not opt out, preserve resources, and avoid inconsistent rulings. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. They argued that the settlement was severely inadequate, described it as a possible “reverse auction,” and contended that they could be harmed by delay and possible loss of evidence.

Legal standard

The court applied the discretionary standard for a stay under Landis v. North American Co. Courts consider the possible harm from a stay, the hardship or unfairness caused by requiring a party to proceed, and whether a stay would promote the orderly and efficient resolution of the issues, evidence, and legal questions.

Court’s analysis

The court did not decide whether the Alameda settlement was fair or whether it should receive final approval. It stated that the Alameda court, not this court, had authority to decide those issues, and noted that Moran could raise her concerns in the Alameda proceeding.

The court found the plaintiffs’ concerns about delay and lost evidence conclusory and unsupported. It also found no showing that a stay of approximately six weeks would cause undue prejudice or strategic disadvantage. In contrast, the court found substantial potential efficiencies. If the settlement received final approval, the class claims in this case might be significantly reduced or resolved, although the court expressly did not decide the eventual effect of approval. Moran and Waddell could opt out and pursue their individual claims in this case, and the parties would not need to plan for class-wide discovery or class-certification briefing during the stay. If final approval were denied, the court would schedule another case-management conference.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the motion to stay this case in its entirety through December 10, 2021. It DIRECTED the parties to file a status report within 48 hours after the Alameda court granted or denied the motion for final settlement approval. The report had to state the outcome of that proceeding and identify any issues remaining for adjudication in this case. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ labeling, statutory, warranty, or unjust-enrichment claims.