Wallerstein v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132218
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Wallerstein filed a putative nationwide class action in the N.D. Cal. (Mar. 21, 2013) alleging Dole mislabeled ten "All Natural" Salad Kits because they contain xanthan gum and ascorbic acid.
- Wallerstein's FAC asserts CLRA, UCL, FAL, implied-in-law contract (California), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, and unjust enrichment (New York) claims.
- A separate putative class action (Park) against Dole was filed Feb. 26, 2013 in the N.D. Cal., later transferred to the C.D. Cal. (Judge Otis D. Wright). Park alleges the same products and core theory (CLRA and UCL claims).
- Dole moved to transfer Wallerstein’s case to the C.D. Cal. under the first-to-file rule (and alternatively § 1404(a) or to dismiss/stay). Wallerstein opposed.
- The court applied the three-part first-to-file test (chronology, party similarity, issue similarity) and granted Dole’s motion, transferring the case to the Central District of California; other transfer/ dismissal arguments were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first-to-file rule applies given Park was originally filed in same district but later transferred | Park was not originally filed in C.D. Cal.; first-to-file only applies to cases filed in different districts; earlier cases voluntarily dismissed shouldn't count | Park (filed Feb. 26, 2013) is the first-filed action and its later transfer does not prevent application of first-to-file rule | First-to-file requires only chronology; Park (Feb. 26) is first-filed, so chronology satisfied |
| Whether parties/classes are substantially similar | Wallerstein: named plaintiffs differ (NY v CA) so parties aren’t same; class comparisons before certification are improper | Dole: putative classes are effectively identical (same products, nationwide class); Dole is common defendant | Substantial similarity standard satisfied by overlap of putative nationwide classes and defendant; parties factor satisfied |
| Whether issues are substantially similar | Wallerstein: her case raises additional state-law claims (NY) making issues different | Dole: core issue is identical — whether "All Natural" labeling is deceptive because of same synthetic ingredients; overlapping claims (UCL, CLRA) | Issues substantially overlap (same products, ingredients, claims); similarity factor satisfied |
| Whether transfer is equitable despite additional claims and potential forum concerns | Wallerstein: New York claims and different named plaintiff weigh against transfer; Park’s original N.D. Cal. filing matters | Dole: judicial efficiency, duplication of discovery, and risk of conflicting judgments favor transfer; C.D. Cal. can apply New York law if needed | Equity favors transfer to C.D. Cal. under first-to-file rule; motion to transfer granted; motion to dismiss denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1982) (first-to-file rule grants discretion to dismiss, stay, or transfer later suits)
- Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods. Inc., 946 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1991) (describing scope and discretion of the first-to-file rule)
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1979) (first-to-file rule promotes comity and avoids conflicting judgments)
- Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussed limits of first-to-file framework though not holding cases must be in different districts)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (2011) (addressed relitigation exception and class-member preclusion issues; court distinguished it as inapposite to first-to-file party-similarity analysis)