In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-01217
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation: Judge Vyskocil found the amended complaint appeared to allege federal class-action jurisdiction and set deadlines for the next response.
The plaintiffs, the defendant, and the proposed class members in all actions consolidated in the litigation are affected. The order primarily sets the parties’ next deadlines after the plaintiffs amended their complaint to address federal jurisdiction.
What happened
In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation concerns whether the plaintiffs’ amended class-action complaint adequately alleged federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court had previously ordered the parties to address the jurisdiction issue or amend their complaint, and the defendant argued that the original complaint did not adequately allege jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Judge Vyskocil said the amended complaint appeared to allege the requirements for jurisdiction under the Act: at least 100 class members, at least $5 million in dispute, and plaintiffs and a defendant from different states.
Judge Vyskocil ordered the defendant to state by May 7, 2024, whether it would answer, file a motion, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint, and to propose a schedule. The plaintiffs must file by April 30, 2024, a redlined comparison showing changes from the original complaint. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation · No. 1:21-cv-01217
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 25, 2024
Background
On March 27, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to show why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), based on the allegations in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Alternatively, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint addressing the jurisdictional deficiencies. At the same time, the Court denied the defendant’s then-pending motion to dismiss without prejudice because of the apparent jurisdiction problem.
The defendant argued that the original complaint did not adequately allege jurisdiction under CAFA. The plaintiffs filed an opposing letter and a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (FACC). The defendant then requested, with the plaintiffs’ consent, additional time to respond to the FACC while the Court considered the jurisdiction issue. The Court granted that request.
Jurisdictional Analysis
The Court reviewed the parties’ submissions and the FACC. On the face of the amended complaint, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations appeared sufficient to invoke CAFA jurisdiction. The Court identified the three relevant allegations: at least 100 class members, an aggregate amount in controversy of at least $5 million excluding interest and costs, and minimal diversity, meaning that at least one plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of different states.
Order
The Court ordered the defendant to file a letter by May 7, 2024, stating whether it intended to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the FACC and proposing a schedule. If the defendant intended to file a motion to dismiss, it had to state whether it would rely on its earlier briefing, supplement that briefing, or file entirely new briefing. The Court separately ordered the plaintiffs to file by April 30, 2024, a redlined document comparing the FACC with the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The order addressed the sufficiency of the jurisdictional allegations and next procedural steps; it did not decide the merits of the class claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.