Koonce v. Sazerac Company, Inc.

Background

Cindy Koonce filed a complaint against Sazerac Company, Inc. She alleged that Sazerac's labeling and marketing of Parrot Bay Malt Beverage was misleading because the product was represented as a rum product even though it was a malt beverage with a lower alcohol-by-volume percentage. Koonce sought to represent a class of New York purchasers of the product.

Koonce asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) to consolidate her action with Pizarro v. Sazerac Company, Inc., No. 7:23-cv-02751. The letter argued that both cases asserted New York General Business Law claims concerning allegedly misleading marketing of Sazerac malt beverages that were similar in labeling to higher-alcohol products. Koonce's case involved Parrot Bay Malt, while the other case involved Fireball Cinnamon malt beverage.

Requested Consolidation

Rule 42(a) allows a court to join or consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact when doing so would avoid unnecessary cost or delay. The letter argued that the cases were both at an early stage, that no counsel had appeared for Sazerac in either case, and that consolidation would reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings and duplicative litigation efforts.

Court's Action

Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered that the plaintiff could file the consolidation motion by June 15, 2023. The order did not grant or deny consolidation and did not resolve the underlying claims.