Jeff Jonah v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation et al

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re [63] MOTION for Leave to File a Consolidated Amended Complaint) Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Consolidated Amended Complaint filed by Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC., Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03243

Current View

Full Text

4 1 Amy P. Lally, SBN 198555 alally@sidley.com 2 Darlene M. Cho, SBN 251167 dcho@sidley.com 3 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Fl. 4 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-9500 5 Facsimile: (310) 595-9501 6 Naomi A. Igra, SBN 269095 nigra@sidley.com 7 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 8 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-1200 9 Facsimile: (415) 772-7400 10 Sheri Porath Rockwell, SBN 165726 sheri.rockwell@sidley.com 11 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000 12 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 13 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 14 Attorneys for Defendants KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; 15 KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC; and KIMBERLY-CLARK 16 WORLDWIDE, INC. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 19 JEFF JONAH, an individual, on behalf of) Case No. 15-cv-03243-PJH 20 himself, the general public and those similarly) (Related to Case No. 4:14-CV-01783-PJH) situated,) 21) Assigned to: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton Plaintiff,) 22) DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO v.) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 23) FILE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION;) COMPLAINT 24 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.;) KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES) Complaint Filed: June 9, 2015 25 LLC; and DOES 1 through 50) Trial Date: None Set) 26 Defendants.) 27 28 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NOS. 15-CV-03243- PJH; 4:14-CV-01783-PJH 4 1 JENNIFER DAVIDSON, an individual, on) behalf of herself, the general public and) 2 those similarly situated,)) 3 Plaintiff,) v.) 4) KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION;) 5 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.;) KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES) 6 LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,)) 7 Defendants.)) 8) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NOS. 15-CV-03243- PJH; 4:14-CV-01783-PJH 4 1 Table of Contents Page 2 3 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 4 II. Procedural Background ..............................................................................................................1 5 III. Applicable Standards .................................................................................................................4 6 IV. Argument ...................................................................................................................................4 7 A. Plaintiffs Have Unduly Delayed ....................................................................................4 8 B. Defendants Will Be Prejudiced by Plaintiffs' Amendment ...........................................7 9 C. Previous Amendments .................................................................................................10 10 D. Futility of Proposed Amendments ...............................................................................10 11 1. Proposed Amendments to Add Claims That Arise Under Laws Other Than California, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington Law 12 Are Clearly Futile Without Regard to the Motion to Intervene .......................11 13 2. If the Court Denies Intervenors to Intervene, Claims Arising Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington Law Are Also Futile ......................11 14 3. Permitting the Addition of a Claim for Breach of Express Warranty 15 Pursuant to Cal. Com. Code § 2313 Would Be Futile .....................................12 16 a. The Express Warranties At Issue .........................................................12 17 b. Representations that Kimberly-Clark Flushable Wipes are "flushable" and "sewer and septic safe," "break up after flushing," or use a 18 patented technology are not promises about dispersing like toilet paper, the impact on municipalities or wastewater treatment plants, or 19 that they will never clog toilets ............................................................13 4. Permitting the Addition of a Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of 20 Merchantability Pursuant to Cal. Com. Code § 2314 Would Be Futile ..........16 21 5. In the Absence of a Potentially Viable Claim Under California Law, Plaintiffs' Proposed Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Claim is 22 Futile ................................................................................................................17 23 6. Plaintiffs' Unjust Enrichment Claim ...............................................................17 24 V. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................18 25 26 27 28 i DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NOS. 15-CV-03243- PJH; 4:14-CV-01783-PJH 4 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Acri v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 5 781 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) .........................................................................................................4 6 Alsabur v. Autozone, Inc., No. CV 13-01689-KAW, 2014 WL 1340730 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2014) ...................................7, 10 7 Banga v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 8 No. C 09-04867 SBA, 2013 WL 1209946 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013) ............................................7 9 Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009) .........................................................................................................17 10 11 Browning v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. SA-CV-16-2210-AG(KESx), 2017 WL 7660643 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2017) ..........................6 12 Bruton v. Gerber Prod. Co., 13 703 F. App'x 468 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................5, 6 14 Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co., 42 Cal. 2d 682 (1954) ....................................................................................................................16 15 16 In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................11, 12 17 City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works, 18 635 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................................4 19 Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................16, 17 20 In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., 21 90 F. Supp. 3d 919 (C.D. Cal. 2015) .............................................................................................16 22 Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 23 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006) ........................................................................................................17 24 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) .........................................................................................................................4 25 Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 26 No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2009 WL 3710696 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009)...............................................7 27 Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. J.R. Mktg., L.L.C., 28 61 Cal. 4th 988 (2015) .................................................................................................................5, 6 ii DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NOS. 15-CV-03243- PJH; 4:14-CV-01783-PJH 4 1 Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990) .....................................................................................................4, 6 2 Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., 3 No. 12-CV-02204-WHO, 2015 WL 5569161 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) ......................................6 4 Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 5 No. 15-CV-258-BAS-NLS, 2016 WL 127583 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016)........................................9 6 McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988) ...........................................................................................................9 7 Monticello v. Winnebago Indus. Inc., 8 369 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (N.D. Ga. 2005) ..........................................................................................17 9 Nabors v. Google, Inc., 10 No. 5:10–CV–03897 EJD (PSG), 2011 WL 3861893 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011) ........................12 11 Osborne v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 198 Cal. App. 3d 646 (1988) .........................................................................................................16 12 Rugg v. Johnson & Johnson, 13 No. 17-CV-05010-BLF, 2018 WL 3023493 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2018) .......................................15 14 Rugg v. Johnson & Johnson, 15 No. 17-CV-05010-BLF, 2019 WL 119971 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) ............................................15 16 Trazo v. Nestle USA, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .........................................................................................17 17 Vavak v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 18 No. SACV10-1995-JVS(RZx), 2011 WL 13130493 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2011) ............................16 19 Weiss v. Trader Joe's Co., No. 18-CV-01130-JLS(GJS), 2018 WL 6340758 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2018) ...............................15 20 21 Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp., 185 Cal. App. 3d 135 (1986) .........................................................................................................12 22 Yastrab v. Apple Inc., 23 173 F. Supp. 3d 972 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...........................................................................................13 24 Zeiger v. WellPet LLC, 304 F. Supp. 3d 837 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .....................................................................................11, 12 25 Statutes 26 27 Cal. Com. Code § 2313 ..................................................................................................................12, 15 28 Cal. Com. Code § 2314 ........................................................................................................................16 iii DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NOS. 15-CV-03243- PJH; 4:14-CV-01783-PJH 4 1 Cal. Com. Code § 2607 ........................................................................................................................15 2 Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. .............................................. passim 3 New York General Business Law § 349 ............................................................................................3, 5 4 New York General Business Law § 350 ............................................................................................3, 5 5 Other Authorities 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)........................................................................................................................10 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 ...............................................................................................................................4, 7 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) ..........................................................................................................................1 9 "Guidance Document for Assessing the Flushability of Nonwoven Disposable 10 Products" ("INDA Guidelines") ....................................................................................................14 11 Order in In the Matter of Nice-Pak Productions, Inc., available at 12 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/151102nice-pakdo.pdf ....................................5 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iv DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NOS. 15-CV-03243- PJH; 4:14-CV-01783-PJH 4 1 I. Introduction 2 Defendants do not oppose the consolidation of