Delcid v. Unilever United States, Inc.
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-09569
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Delcid v. Helen of Troy, Judge Broderick denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the cases and appoint interim class counsel.
The order affected plaintiffs Otto Delcid and Luz Roman, the absent defendants Helen of Troy Limited and Tengram Capital Partners, LLC, and the proposed consumer class. The consolidation motion was denied without prejudice, and plaintiffs were required to seek default judgment by February 4, 2022, or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Delcid v. Helen of Troy Limited, Otto Delcid and Luz Roman sought to represent consumers in a class action about the marketing and sale of certain antiperspirant aerosol and spray products. They asked the court to combine their case with another pending action and to appoint interim class counsel. No defendant had appeared in either case.
The court denied the motion without prejudice because it did not have the defendants’ views on whether the cases should be combined. The plaintiffs may renew the motion if defendants appear in this case.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also ordered the plaintiffs to seek a default judgment by February 4, 2022, because the defendants had not appeared. The plaintiffs could also request class certification as part of that filing. The court warned that it would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute if the plaintiffs did not seek default judgment by that date or otherwise showed they did not intend to continue the case.
The detailed version
- Delcid v. Unilever United States, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09569
- Denise Cote
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs Otto Delcid and Luz Roman filed a proposed class action concerning the marketing and sale of certain “antiperspirant aerosol and spray products.” They later filed an amended complaint that removed one defendant. After the defendants were served, plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) to consolidate this action with another pending action and requested appointment of interim class counsel.
The opinion states that no defendant had appeared in either action. Rule 42(a) permits a court to consolidate separate actions involving common questions of law or fact. The court explained that consolidation can reduce repeated litigation and confusion, but that the court must closely examine the circumstances of the cases.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion without prejudice. The court explained that it lacked the benefit of any defendant’s position because no defendant had appeared in either action. Plaintiffs may renew the motion if and when defendants appear in this case.
The court also ordered plaintiffs to seek a default judgment under Rule 4(H) of the judge’s individual rules and practices by February 4, 2022. Plaintiffs were permitted to include a motion for class certification with their request for default judgment. If they did so, the court directed them to address whether service was proper, whether the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and recent Second Circuit law on specific jurisdiction.
The court warned that it would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if plaintiffs did not move for default judgment by February 4, 2022, or otherwise demonstrated that they did not intend to prosecute the case. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at docket number 12.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.