## Facts

- Numerous class actions arose from a 2007 nationwide pet-food recall involving alleged melamine-related contamination in ingredients imported from China.
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the recall-related actions as MDL No. 1850 in the District of New Jersey.
- A tag-along action, *Snell*, was filed in the Southern District of Texas by pet owners against Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc. and others.
- *Snell* alleged economic losses and asserted claims including false advertising, including “Made in America” marketing despite allegedly China-sourced contaminated ingredients.
- *Snell* focused in part on alleged contamination tied to rice protein concentrate, rather than wheat gluten.
- The Panel issued a Conditional Transfer Order (CTO) transferring *Snell* to MDL 1850.
- The *Snell* plaintiffs and Natural Balance jointly moved to vacate the CTO, arguing the action was factually and legally distinct from the MDL’s core cases.

## Issues

1. Whether *Snell* involved “common questions of fact” with MDL No. 1850 such that transfer would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a).
2. Whether *Snell*’s asserted distinctions (rice protein concentrate, economic-loss scope, and “Made in America” allegations) justified keeping it outside the MDL.

## Decision

- The Panel denied the motion to vacate the Conditional Transfer Order.
- The Panel ordered transfer of *Snell* to the District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 1850.
- The Panel found *Snell* shared the MDL’s factual core concerning the recall of allegedly tainted pet food and the contamination/supply chain issues linked to imported ingredients.
- The Panel concluded that claimed differences did not outweigh efficiencies from centralized discovery and consistent pretrial rulings.
- The Panel distinguished a separate “Made in USA” origin-misrepresentation case that was not transferred because it was not tied to the recall-based contamination allegations.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), transfer to an MDL is appropriate when actions share common questions of fact and centralization will serve convenience and the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- Differences among tag-along actions (ingredient at issue, damages magnitude, or additional theories such as origin-based misrepresentation) do not bar transfer when the actions arise from the same event sequence and share overlapping discovery and pretrial issues.
- Case-specific issues can be managed within the MDL by the transferee court; separable matters may be remanded after coordinated pretrial proceedings if appropriate.

## Conclusion

The JPML transferred the *Snell* tag-along action into the existing pet-food recall MDL because the case arose from the same contamination-and-recall events and presented overlapping factual questions, making coordinated pretrial proceedings more efficient under § 1407.


In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., 544 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2008)