Silva v. B&G Foods, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs Sabrina Silva and Nancy Schier filed an administrative motion asking the court to continue the trial date and establish a schedule for filing a renewed motion for class certification. Defendants B&G Foods, Inc. and B&G Foods North America, Inc. opposed the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court held that plaintiffs used the wrong procedural vehicle. Civil Local Rule 7-11 applies to miscellaneous administrative matters not otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or the assigned judge’s standing order. Because plaintiffs relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, their request to change the case schedule was governed by Rule 16 rather than Local Rule 7-11.

Under Rule 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court found no good cause. Plaintiffs did not identify new evidence or legal theories that they had not previously known about through no fault of their own. The court also relied on its prior explanation that courts generally reject requests to permit a second class-certification motion merely because the first motion was denied and the deadline for seeking class certification had passed.

Plaintiffs argued that the court’s summary judgment ruling and its exclusion of portions of testimony from B&G’s expert, Dr. Robert Palmatier, justified a renewed class-certification motion. The court disagreed. It said those rulings did not affect its prior denial of class certification. The court’s earlier class-certification ruling had found that individualized questions about whether class members suffered concrete harm would overwhelm common questions, even if materiality and reliance could be shown on a classwide basis. The court also noted that plaintiffs had offered no evidence that anyone other than the named plaintiffs would not have bought the products without the challenged “0g Trans Fat! per serving” representation.

The court further rejected plaintiffs’ argument that individualized inquiries were unnecessary to award restitution under California’s unfair competition law. It discussed evidence that found no statistical difference in consumers’ likelihood of purchasing taco shells with or without the statement and reported that, on average, respondents were willing to pay 2% more when the statement was removed.

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied plaintiffs’ motion to modify the case schedule. The opinion does not state that the court continued the trial or authorized a renewed class-certification motion.