Preview
CIV-130
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER: 205920/209183/215541 FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME: Anthony L. Label/Theo J. Emison III/Steven A. Kronenberg
FIRM NAME: The Veen Firm, LLP
STREET ADDRESS: 20 Haight Street
CITY: San Francisco STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 94102
TELEPHONE NO .. (415) 673-4800 FAX NO .. (415) 771-5845
EMAIL ADDRESS: al.team@veenfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR (name): Jose Chavez
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF NAPA
STREET ADDRESS: 825 Brown Street
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Napa, CA 94459
BRANCH NAME: Historic Courthouse
PLAI NTIFF/PETITIO NER : Jose Chavez
DEFE NDANTIRESPONDEN~ Botanic Tonics, LLC et.al.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
CASE NUMBER:
OR ORDER
(Check one): CJ
X UNLIMITED CASE CJ LIMITED CASE 23CV001168
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $35 ,000) $35 ,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES:
1. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date) : 2/26 /24, 3/13/24
2. A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Date: 3/27/24
Anthony L. Label/Theo J. Emison III/Steven A. Kronenberg ►
(TYPE OR PRINT NAM E OF DX ATTORN EY D PARTY WITH OUT ATTORN EY)
Page 1 of 2
Form Ap proved for Optional Use www.courts.ca.gov
Judicial Counci l of California NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
CIV-1 30 [Rev . January 1, 2024]
Westlaw Doc & Form Builder·
2
F ~ l ED
ALAMEDA COUNTY
4
FEB 2 6 2024
IORCOURi
Oeputy
6
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
10
11
13 ) Case No. JCCP5313
BOTANIC TONIC PERSONAL INJURY )
14 CASES )
)
15 )
) ORDER (1) SETTING HEARING ON
\6 ) PETITION TO COORDINATE AND (2)
) STA YING CASES
17 )
)
18 )
)
19
\---- - - - -- - - - - -- ~ )
20
ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PETITION TO COORDINATE
21
The court orders that the hearing on the petition to coordinate is set for 9:00 AM
on Friday, March 15, 2024 in Department 23. (CRC 3.527. )
Any party may file any opposition to or support for the petition for coordination
2-1
nine (9) cou rt days before the hearing date. (CRC 3.535, 3. 536.)
-1-
The identified superior court cases in the Judicial Council order are:
2
J Court Number Short Title
'-I
Superior Court of California 23CV031152 Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC
5
County of Alameda et al.
6
Superior Court of California 23SMCV03251 Miller v. Botanic Tonics, LLC ,
7
Cou nty of Los Angeles et al.
8
Superior Court of California 23SMCV04346 Correa v. Botanic Tonics,
9
County of Los Angeles LLC, et al.
10
Superior Court of California 23SMCV04347 Cseri v. Botanic Tonics, LLC,
11
County of Los Angeles et al.
12
Superior Court of California 23SMCV04350 Rosenfeld v. Botanic Tonics,
13
County of Los Angeles LLC, et al.
l'-1
--
15 Superior Court of California 23SMCV04360 Miller v. Botanic Tonics, LLC,
16 County of Los Angeles et al.
17 Superior Court of California 23SMCV05006 Todd v. Botanic Tonics, LLC ,
18
County of Los Angeles et al.
19
Superior Court of California 23SMCV05007 Miller v. Botanic Tonics , LLC,
20
County of Los Angeles et al.
21
Superior Court of California 23SMCV05008 Norfleet v. Botanic Tonics,
22
County of Los Angeles LLC , et al.
Superior Court of California 23SMCV02585 Tatham v. Botanic Tonics,
24
County of Los Angeles LLC , et al.
25
-2-
Superior Court of 23CV001168 Chavez v. Botanic Tonics,
2 California County of Napa LLC, et al.
3 Superior Court of 23-CIV-04394 Moynihan v. Botanic
4 California County of San Tonics, LLC, et al.
5 Mateo
6 Superior Court of 37-2023-00046119 De La Vega v. Botanic
7 California County of San Tonics, LLC, et al.
8 Diego
9 Superior Court of 23CV424990 Oxley v. Botanic Tonics,
10 California County of Santa LLC, et al.
11 Clara
12
13 ORDER FOR STAY IN ALL INCLUDED CASES
14
The court ORDERS an immediate STAY of all proceedings in each of the
15
included cases.(CCP 404.5;CRC3.3.515.).
16
17
HEARING RELATING TO COORDINATION AND STAY
18
At the hearing on the petition to coordinate and stay, the parties are to be
19
prepared to address:
20
1. Regarding coordination:
21
a. Whether to grant the petition for coordination.
22
b. The location of any coordinated proceeding.
2. Regarding the stay:
24
a. The status of any pending discovery in the cases.
25
b. The status of any pending motions in the cases.
-3-
b. The status of any pending motions in the cases.
2 The court ORDERS counsel for plaintiffs and petitioners must file a copy of
3 this order in each of the cases identified above and serve a copy of this order on all
4 parties in each of the identified cases by personal delivery, fax or next day mail and
5 email upon receipt of this order. (CRC 3.510 & 3.511 .)
6 The court ORDERS counsel for plaintiffs and petitioners must serve a copy of
7 this order to the Judicial Council's Civil Case Coordination Unit.
8
lJ
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Date : February 26, 2024 / -~ - - - - -
T araM.Oesautels
13
Superior Court Judge
1.:1 • I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2-l
-4-
II
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases
03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23
Tentative Ruling - 03/13/2024 Tara Desautels
The Petition for Coordination filed by Romulo Torres on 02/22/2024 in case number JCCP5313
is Granted.
The Petition for Coordination is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that the “Included Actions,”
as enumerated at the bottom of this ruling, are coordinated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1; Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.529.)
The individual Included Actions are STAYED pending further order of the Coordination Trial
Judge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515.)
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a copy of this Order in each of the Included Action and
serve a copy of this Order on all parties in each of the Included Action by personal delivery, fax
or next day mail and email. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.510.) Plaintiff must also submit a copy
of this Order to the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.511.)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff and Petitioner Romulo Torres petitions for coordination of fourteen (14) actions:
1. Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV031152 – Filed April 13, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (Product Liability);
2. Tatham v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV02585 – Filed June 9, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
3. Miller, Jon v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV03251 – Filed July 14,2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
4. Chavez v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV001168 – Filed September 14, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Napa (Product Liability);
5. Miller, Dustin v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04360 – Filed September 15,
2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
6. Rosenfield v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04350 – Filed September 15, 2023,
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
7. Correa Jr. v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04346 – Filed September 15, 2023,
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
8. Moynihan v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CIV04394 – Filed September 15, 2023, in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo (Product Liability);
9. Cseri v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04347 – Filed September 15, 2023, in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
10. De La Vega v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 37-2023-00046119-CU-PL-CTL – Filed
October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Product Liability);
11. Oxley v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV424990 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases
03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Product Liability);
12. Miller, Dylan v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05007 – Filed October 23, 2023,
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
13. Norfleet v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05008 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); and
14. Todd v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05006 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability).
Petitioner and Plaintiffs in the above actions are represented by Arns Davis Law and the Veen
Firm. Defendant Botanic Tonics, LLC (represented by ArentFox Schiff LLP), and Defendant 7-
Eleven, Inc. (represented by Husch Blackwell LLP) filed timely oppositions. (Dharap Decl., ¶¶
3-5.) The positions of the other parties are represented in the Refiled Hewlett Declaration.
(Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 6.)
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Botanic Tonics’s “Feel Free Wellness Tonic” is “misleadingly
advertised” “as a safe, healthy, and sober alternative to alcohol.” (See, e.g., Dharap Decl., Ex. 1
at ¶ 28 [Torres complaint].) Plaintiffs are individuals who formerly “battled with alcoholism”
and “worked to attain sobriety.” (See, e.g., Dharap Decl., Ex. 1 at ¶ 25 [Torres]; see also id., Ex.
2 at ¶¶ 18-19 [Tatham]; Ex. 3 at ¶ 17 [Miller].) They bring claims for negligence, strict products
liability, and negligent products liability against Defendant Botanic Tonics and the retailers from
which they purchased “Feel Free Wellness Tonic.” (Dharap Decl., ¶ 15.)
Counsel for Petitioner anticipates filing “approximately 50 more” similar actions in early 2024.
(Dharap Decl., ¶ 13 [also noting there is a similar nationwide class action that has been filed in
the Northern District of California].) In fact, since the filing of this Petition, counsel for
Petitioner has filed at least five additional cases. (Supp. Dharap Decl., ¶ 3 [listing Cummings v.
Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., San Diego Superior Court No. 37-2023-00052818-CU-PL-NC;
Larsen v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00516; Gordon, et al. v.
Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00517; Stoltz v. Botanic Tonics,
LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00520; see also Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 2
[referencing Wolson v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., LA Superior Case No. 24CV01201 as well as
Gordon, Stoltz, and Larsen, supra].) Of these five recently filed actions, four have been filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court (Larsen, Gordon, Stoltz, and Wolson, supra), and one has been filed
in San Diego Superior Court (Cummings, supra). The Court is not aware of any new actions
filed in northern California. Therefore, the Court’s ruling includes the 14 actions identified in
the Petition as well as the other actions identified in subsequent filings (together, the “Included
Actions”). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule. 3.531, subd. (b).) The Court includes a full list of the
“Included Actions” at the bottom of this ruling.
Petitioner seeks to coordinate the Included Actions in Alameda County Superior Court, and to
have the First District Court of Appeal designated as the reviewing court. (Petition, ¶ 5.)
Defendants Botanic Tonics and 7-Eleven submit “partial” and “conditional” oppositions, which
agree that the Included Action should be coordinated as a complex civil proceeding but argue
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases
03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23
that the coordinated proceeding should be placed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
(Botanic Tonic Opposition, p. 2 [“Defendants agree that the case should be coordinated as a
complex civil proceeding, but Defendants jointly assert that the coordinated proceeding should
be placed in Los Angeles County…”]; 7-Eleven Opposition, p. 2 [“While 7-Eleven does not
oppose coordination of these Feel Free cases, … Los Angeles County Superior Court is a more
suitable venue for coordination of these cases…”].) With limited exception, counsel for all
defendants alleged across all the Included Actions have joined Botanic and 7-Eleven in the
partial/conditional opposition which agrees to coordination but opposes venue, arguing the cases
should be coordinated out of Los Angeles County Superior Court rather than Alameda County
Superior Court. (Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 6 [noting the exceptions as counsel for defendants
Cavedwellers, Inc. and A 1 Food & Liquor Inc., who did not respond to the inquiry, and
defendant Sencco, who took no position to the location of coordination].)
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A petition for coordination “shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the
actions are complex…and that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 404.)
Coordination of civil actions sharing common questions or fact or law is appropriate if it “will
promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is
predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and
counsel, the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel, the efficient
utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of
duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and the likelihood of settlement of the
actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1; see
also Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal. App.5th 626.)
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, counsel for Petitioner declares, and Defendants do not dispute, that the
Included Actions are complex. (Dharap Decl., ¶ 14.) The only action pending in Alameda
County—Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., Case No. 23CV031152—has been deemed
complex. (1/5/24 Order re Complex Determination.) The remaining Included Actions include
several separately represented parties and are the subjects of this coordination petition. (Dharap
Decl., ¶¶ 3-9; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400, subd. (b)(3) & (4).) Accordingly, the
Court finds the Included Actions are complex pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.400.
A. Coordination Will Promote the Ends of Justice
Section 404.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure outlines various factors that courts consider when
ruling on a petition of coordination.
While the parties here disagree on the proper venue, no party disputes that coordination is
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases
03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23
appropriate. (MPA, p. 5; Botanic Opposition, p. 3 [“Accordingly, Defendants do not address the
factors determine whether cases should be coordinated…”]; Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 6.)
Considering the factors in section 404.1, the Court finds that coordination is appropriate.
Here, Plaintiffs assert the same causes of action based upon the same product. (Dharap Decl., ¶
15 & Exs. 1-14.) Thus, the Included Actions share common questions of fact and law. Further,
coordination would benefit the parties, witnesses, and counsel. Given that more than 14 cases
are currently pending in various courts throughout California, the parties, witnesses, and counsel
would benefit from coordinating pre-trial discovery.
The Included Actions are in relatively early stages of litigation and there has been no significant
motion practice. (Dharap Decl., ¶ 17.) The first filed action (Torres) was filed in April of 2023,
and Defendants have filed answers (as opposed to demurring). (Hewlett Decl., ¶ 5.) Further,
coordination would alleviate the burden of various courts having to manage each case
individually and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings.
Therefore, considering the relevant factors, the Court finds that coordination for all purposes will
promote the ends of justice.
B. Venue and Reviewing Court
In considering the appropriate venue, the coordination motion judge considers “any relevant
factors” including the number of actions pending in a particular court; the stage of litigation; the
efficient use of court resources; the location of witnesses and evidence; the convenience of
parties and witnesses; and the ease of travel to and availability of accommodations in particular
locations. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.530, subd. (b).)
In favor of Alameda County, Petitioner argues that it is the location of the first filed action (i.e.,
Torres) and that a nationwide class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. (MPA, p. 7.) Thus, Alameda County would allow depositions to be
scheduled “back-to-back in person” instead of “having to force the witness to fly out to Northern
California for the class action and then to Southern California for the JCCP.” (Ibid.)
In favor of Los Angeles, Defendant Botanic Tonics argues that “the vast majority” of filed cases
have been filed in Los Angeles County (13 of the 19 Included Actions), while 2 have been filed
in San Diego County, and only 1 has been filed in Alameda County. (Botanic Opp., p. 4; Refiled
Hewlett Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3.) Defendants’ counsel and “at least one key PMK witness” are based in
Los Angeles. (Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant Botanic represents that “the vast majority
of Plaintiffs reside in L.A. County” and thus relevant witnesses, medical providers, and records
will be based in Los Angeles (Botanic Opp., p. 5.) Defendant further argues that “the vast
majority of the 7-Eleven franchisee stores visited by Plaintiffs are in L.A. County.” (Ibid.)
Defendant 7-Eleven agrees, asserting that “most of the witnesses, including plaintiffs, their
treating doctors, the retailers and franchisees from which Plaintiffs have allegedly obtained the
Feel Free product, and any other percipient witnesses more likely than not reside in Southern
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases
03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23
California.” (7-Eleven Opp., p. 4.)
Considering the relevant factors, the Court recommends Los Angeles County Superior Court as
the venue.
Here, the Court does not find that the pending federal class action in the Northern District weighs
in favor of hosting the state coordinated proceedings in Alameda County. As Petitioner states:
“Regarding depositions, Petitioner proposes conducting these by remote video conference (e.g.,
Zoom) wherever practicable to minimize the time and cost of travel for parties, witnesses, and
counsel.” (MPA, p. 6.) Thus, Petitioner’s representation of the need to schedule depositions
“back-to-back” does not weigh in favor of Alameda County. Insofar as travel is required, since
Petitioner’s counsel represents Plaintiffs in the superior court cases and in the federal class
action, presumably counsel could coordinate (e.g., cross-notice) depositions to avoid unnecessary
travel. (Moreover, this deposition convenience argument presumes that the federal and state
court actions would be proceeding at the same pace, which is an assumption too uncertain to be
persuasive.)
Other factors are neutral. Alameda and Los Angeles Counties are both serviced by multiple
airports with adequate accommodations. Both Alameda and Los Angeles County Superior
Courts have complex departments capable of handling JCCPs.
The remaining factors weigh in favor of Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant Botanic Tonics is headquartered in Los Angeles, and most of the Included
Actions are pending in Los Angeles (and the majority of subsequently filed actions are also in
Los Angeles or San Diego). Counsel for Defendants Botanic and 7-Eleven have offices in Los
Angeles, and counsel for several of the other defendants are located in Los Angeles and
elsewhere in Southern California (e.g., co-counsel for Durga Ma, Inc., et al.; counsel for Sunlife
Organics, LLC). Further, most of the Plaintiffs in the Included Actions are either from Los
Angeles (Rosenfield, Correa, Cseri, Norfleet) or allege to have purchased the product in Los
Angeles (Tatham; Miller, Jon; Miller, Dustin). Consistent with California Rules of Court, rule
3.300(h)(2), this Court engaged in an administrative telephone conference with the Honorable
David S. Cunningham, the Assistant Supervising Judge of the Complex Division of Los Angeles
Superior Court and the presiding judge of Dept. 11 at the Spring Street Courthouse, who had no
objection to the coordinated proceedings being assigned to Los Angeles Superior Court.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the Included Actions and any appropriately noticed add-
on actions be coordinated in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Correspondingly, the Court
recommends that the reviewing court be the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District,
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 404.2.
ORDERS
1. The Court orders that Petitioner’s petition to coordinate is GRANTED, good
cause appearing that the coordination of the Included Actions is appropriate. (Code
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases
03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23
Civ. Proc., § 404.1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.529.)
2. The Court recommends Los Angeles County Superior Court as the proper venue
for the coordination action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.3; California Rules of Court, rule
3.530.)
3. The Court recommends the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, as the
reviewing court having appellate jurisdiction and the court in which any petition for a
writ relating to any subsequent order in this proceeding shall be filed. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 404.2.)
4. The Court STAYS further proceedings in the individual actions pending order of
the coordination trial judge. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.529, subd. (b).)
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a copy of this Order in each of the Included Action and
serve a copy of this Order on all parties in each of the Included Action by personal delivery, fax
or next day mail and email. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.510.) Plaintiff must also submit a copy
of this Order to the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.511.)
As used herein, the Included Actions are:
1. Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV031152 – Filed April 13, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (Product Liability);
2. Tatham v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV02585 – Filed June 9, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
3. Miller, Jon v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV03251 – Filed July 14,2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
4. Chavez v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV001168 – Filed September 14, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Napa (Product Liability);
5. Miller, Dustin v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04360 – Filed September 15,
2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
6. Rosenfield v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04350 – Filed September 15, 2023,
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
7. Correa Jr. v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04346 – Filed September 15, 2023,
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
8. Moynihan v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CIV04394 – Filed September 15, 2023, in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo (Product Liability);
9. Cseri v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04347 – Filed September 15, 2023, in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
10. De La Vega v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 37-2023-00046119-CU-PL-CTL – Filed
October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Product Liability);
11. Oxley v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV424990 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Product Liability);
12. Miller, Dylan v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05007 – Filed October 23, 2023,
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability);
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases
03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23
13. Norfleet v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05008 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); and
14. Todd v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05006 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability).
15. Cummings v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., San Diego Superior Court No. 37-2023-00052818-
CU-PL-NC;
16. Larsen v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00516;
17. Gordon, et al. v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00517;
18. Stoltz v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00520;
19. Wolson v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., LA Superior Case No. 24CV01201.
PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the Court’s order, and no hearing will be
held unless the tentative ruling (TR) is contested consistent with the below directives.
FIRST, the party seeking to contest the TR must contact the opposing counsel or unrepresented
party to (1) state their basis for contesting the TR, and (2) engage in good faith meet and confer
efforts to avoid need to contest the TR.
The court REQUIRES these meet and confer efforts to take place IN PERSON, via telephone or
video conference.
Parties must file any ensuing stipulated agreement and [proposed] order that differs from the TR
prior to 4:00 PM the day before the scheduled hearing, with courtesy copies emailed to the court
at dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov.
SECOND, if agreement is not reached after good faith, in person meet and confer efforts, the
party seeking to contest the TR must notice their contest through eCourt and by email to Dept. 23
at dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the scheduled hearing.
The email to Dept. 23 must detail the parties meet and confer efforts and the remaining areas of
disagreement. Remote hearing access information will only be provided after good faith meet
and confer efforts have been demonstrated.
The notification through eCourt must similarly specify the areas of the TR being contested.
(Please see below for additional eCourt directions.)
NOTICE VIA BOTH eCOURT AND EMAIL IS REQUIRED TO CONTEST A TR.
CONTESTING TR’S VIA eCOURT
1. Log into eCourt Public Portal
2. Case Search
3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search”
4. Select the Case Name
5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases
03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23
6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling”
7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting
8. Select “Proceed”
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Chavez, Jose v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al.
Napa County Superior Action No. 23CV001168
3
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
4 employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is 20
Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.
5
On April 2, 2024, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as NOTICE
6 OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER on the interested parties in this action as follows:
7 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
8 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the
document(s) to be sent from e-mail address mc.luppino@VeenFirm.com to the persons at the e-
9 mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
10
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
11 foregoing is true and correct.
12 Executed on April 2, 2024, at San Francisco, California.
13
14
Margo Luppino
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE VEEN FIRM LLP
20 HAIGHT STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
Tel: (415) 673-4800
www.veenfirm.com
-1-
1 SERVICE LIST
Chavez, Jose v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al.
2 Napa County Superior Action No. 23CV001168
3
Robert S. Arns Shayan Heidarzadeh
4 Jonathan E. Davis HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
Shounak S. Dharap 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 700
5 Robert C. Foss Oakland, CA 94612
Truong X. Pham Tel: (510) 768-0628
6 ARNS DAVIS LAW Fax: (510) 768-0651
515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor shayan.heidarzadeh@huschblackwell.com
7 San Francisco, CA 94109
Tel: (415) 495-7800 Attorney for Defendant 7-ELEVEN, INC.
8 Fax: (415) 495-7888
rsa@arnslaw.com
9 jed@arnslaw.com
ssd@arnslaw.com
10 rcf@arnslaw.com
txp@arnslaw.com
11 jap@arnslaw.com
dos@arnslaw.com
12
Attorney for Plaintiff JOSE CHAVEZ
13
Bradford J. DeJardin John S. Purcell
14 Patricia Ball Alberts Douglas E. Hewlett
HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP Eitan G. Berkowitz
15 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2850 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90071 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
16 Tel: (213) 337-6550 Los Angeles, CA 90013
Fax: (213) 337-6551 Tel: (213) 629-7400
17 brad.dejardin@huschblackwell.com Fax: (213) 629-7401
patricia.alberts@huschblackwell.com john.purcell@afslaw.com
18 douglas.hewlett@afslaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant 7-ELEVEN, INC. eitan.berkowitz@afslaw.com
19
Attorneys for Defendants BOTANIC
20 TONICS, LLC; DURGA MA, INC.,
ESHWARAMMA, INC.
21
Mandy L. Sims Colette F. Stone
22 WOLFE & WYMAN LLP Jane E. Bednar
1310 H Street STONE & ASSOCIATES
23 Sacramento, CA 95814 2125 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 101
Tel: (916) 912-4700 Walnut Creek, CA 94598
24 Fax: (949) 475-9203 Tel: (925) 938-1555
mlsims@ww.law Fax: (925) 938-2937
25 crjones@ww.law jbednar@stonelawoffice.com
cpernell@stonelawoffice.com
26 Attorneys for Defendant ISHAQ TRADING
CORPORATION Attorneys for Defendant NAPA VALLEY
27 PETROLEUM, INC
28
THE VEEN FIRM LLP
20 HAIGHT STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
Tel: (415) 673-4800
www.veenfirm.com
-2-
Preview
CIV-130 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER: 205920/209183/215541 FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME: Anthony L. Label/Theo J. Emison III/Steven A. Kronenberg FIRM NAME: The Veen Firm, LLP STREET ADDRESS: 20 Haight Street CITY: San Francisco STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 94102 TELEPHONE NO .. (415) 673-4800 FAX NO .. (415) 771-5845 EMAIL ADDRESS: al.team@veenfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR (name): Jose Chavez SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF NAPA STREET ADDRESS: 825 Brown Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: Napa, CA 94459 BRANCH NAME: Historic Courthouse PLAI NTIFF/PETITIO NER : Jose Chavez DEFE NDANTIRESPONDEN~ Botanic Tonics, LLC et.al. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER: OR ORDER (Check one): CJ X UNLIMITED CASE CJ LIMITED CASE 23CV001168 (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $35 ,000) $35 ,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES: 1. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date) : 2/26 /24, 3/13/24 2. A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date: 3/27/24 Anthony L. Label/Theo J. Emison III/Steven A. Kronenberg ► (TYPE OR PRINT NAM E OF DX ATTORN EY D PARTY WITH OUT ATTORN EY) Page 1 of 2 Form Ap proved for Optional Use www.courts.ca.gov Judicial Counci l of California NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER CIV-1 30 [Rev . January 1, 2024] Westlaw Doc & Form Builder· 2 F ~ l ED ALAMEDA COUNTY 4 FEB 2 6 2024 IORCOURi Oeputy 6 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 13 ) Case No. JCCP5313 BOTANIC TONIC PERSONAL INJURY ) 14 CASES ) ) 15 ) ) ORDER (1) SETTING HEARING ON \6 ) PETITION TO COORDINATE AND (2) ) STA YING CASES 17 ) ) 18 ) ) 19 \---- - - - -- - - - - -- ~ ) 20 ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PETITION TO COORDINATE 21 The court orders that the hearing on the petition to coordinate is set for 9:00 AM on Friday, March 15, 2024 in Department 23. (CRC 3.527. ) Any party may file any opposition to or support for the petition for coordination 2-1 nine (9) cou rt days before the hearing date. (CRC 3.535, 3. 536.) -1- The identified superior court cases in the Judicial Council order are: 2 J Court Number Short Title '-I Superior Court of California 23CV031152 Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC 5 County of Alameda et al. 6 Superior Court of California 23SMCV03251 Miller v. Botanic Tonics, LLC , 7 Cou nty of Los Angeles et al. 8 Superior Court of California 23SMCV04346 Correa v. Botanic Tonics, 9 County of Los Angeles LLC, et al. 10 Superior Court of California 23SMCV04347 Cseri v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, 11 County of Los Angeles et al. 12 Superior Court of California 23SMCV04350 Rosenfeld v. Botanic Tonics, 13 County of Los Angeles LLC, et al. l'-1 -- 15 Superior Court of California 23SMCV04360 Miller v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, 16 County of Los Angeles et al. 17 Superior Court of California 23SMCV05006 Todd v. Botanic Tonics, LLC , 18 County of Los Angeles et al. 19 Superior Court of California 23SMCV05007 Miller v. Botanic Tonics , LLC, 20 County of Los Angeles et al. 21 Superior Court of California 23SMCV05008 Norfleet v. Botanic Tonics, 22 County of Los Angeles LLC , et al. Superior Court of California 23SMCV02585 Tatham v. Botanic Tonics, 24 County of Los Angeles LLC , et al. 25 -2- Superior Court of 23CV001168 Chavez v. Botanic Tonics, 2 California County of Napa LLC, et al. 3 Superior Court of 23-CIV-04394 Moynihan v. Botanic 4 California County of San Tonics, LLC, et al. 5 Mateo 6 Superior Court of 37-2023-00046119 De La Vega v. Botanic 7 California County of San Tonics, LLC, et al. 8 Diego 9 Superior Court of 23CV424990 Oxley v. Botanic Tonics, 10 California County of Santa LLC, et al. 11 Clara 12 13 ORDER FOR STAY IN ALL INCLUDED CASES 14 The court ORDERS an immediate STAY of all proceedings in each of the 15 included cases.(CCP 404.5;CRC3.3.515.). 16 17 HEARING RELATING TO COORDINATION AND STAY 18 At the hearing on the petition to coordinate and stay, the parties are to be 19 prepared to address: 20 1. Regarding coordination: 21 a. Whether to grant the petition for coordination. 22 b. The location of any coordinated proceeding. 2. Regarding the stay: 24 a. The status of any pending discovery in the cases. 25 b. The status of any pending motions in the cases. -3- b. The status of any pending motions in the cases. 2 The court ORDERS counsel for plaintiffs and petitioners must file a copy of 3 this order in each of the cases identified above and serve a copy of this order on all 4 parties in each of the identified cases by personal delivery, fax or next day mail and 5 email upon receipt of this order. (CRC 3.510 & 3.511 .) 6 The court ORDERS counsel for plaintiffs and petitioners must serve a copy of 7 this order to the Judicial Council's Civil Case Coordination Unit. 8 lJ 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Date : February 26, 2024 / -~ - - - - - T araM.Oesautels 13 Superior Court Judge 1.:1 • I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2-l -4- II SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases 03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23 Tentative Ruling - 03/13/2024 Tara Desautels The Petition for Coordination filed by Romulo Torres on 02/22/2024 in case number JCCP5313 is Granted. The Petition for Coordination is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that the “Included Actions,” as enumerated at the bottom of this ruling, are coordinated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.529.) The individual Included Actions are STAYED pending further order of the Coordination Trial Judge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515.) The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a copy of this Order in each of the Included Action and serve a copy of this Order on all parties in each of the Included Action by personal delivery, fax or next day mail and email. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.510.) Plaintiff must also submit a copy of this Order to the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.511.) BACKGROUND Plaintiff and Petitioner Romulo Torres petitions for coordination of fourteen (14) actions: 1. Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV031152 – Filed April 13, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (Product Liability); 2. Tatham v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV02585 – Filed June 9, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 3. Miller, Jon v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV03251 – Filed July 14,2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 4. Chavez v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV001168 – Filed September 14, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Napa (Product Liability); 5. Miller, Dustin v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04360 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 6. Rosenfield v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04350 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 7. Correa Jr. v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04346 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 8. Moynihan v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CIV04394 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo (Product Liability); 9. Cseri v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04347 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 10. De La Vega v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 37-2023-00046119-CU-PL-CTL – Filed October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Product Liability); 11. Oxley v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV424990 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases 03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23 Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Product Liability); 12. Miller, Dylan v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05007 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 13. Norfleet v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05008 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); and 14. Todd v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05006 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability). Petitioner and Plaintiffs in the above actions are represented by Arns Davis Law and the Veen Firm. Defendant Botanic Tonics, LLC (represented by ArentFox Schiff LLP), and Defendant 7- Eleven, Inc. (represented by Husch Blackwell LLP) filed timely oppositions. (Dharap Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) The positions of the other parties are represented in the Refiled Hewlett Declaration. (Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Botanic Tonics’s “Feel Free Wellness Tonic” is “misleadingly advertised” “as a safe, healthy, and sober alternative to alcohol.” (See, e.g., Dharap Decl., Ex. 1 at ¶ 28 [Torres complaint].) Plaintiffs are individuals who formerly “battled with alcoholism” and “worked to attain sobriety.” (See, e.g., Dharap Decl., Ex. 1 at ¶ 25 [Torres]; see also id., Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 18-19 [Tatham]; Ex. 3 at ¶ 17 [Miller].) They bring claims for negligence, strict products liability, and negligent products liability against Defendant Botanic Tonics and the retailers from which they purchased “Feel Free Wellness Tonic.” (Dharap Decl., ¶ 15.) Counsel for Petitioner anticipates filing “approximately 50 more” similar actions in early 2024. (Dharap Decl., ¶ 13 [also noting there is a similar nationwide class action that has been filed in the Northern District of California].) In fact, since the filing of this Petition, counsel for Petitioner has filed at least five additional cases. (Supp. Dharap Decl., ¶ 3 [listing Cummings v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., San Diego Superior Court No. 37-2023-00052818-CU-PL-NC; Larsen v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00516; Gordon, et al. v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00517; Stoltz v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00520; see also Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 2 [referencing Wolson v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., LA Superior Case No. 24CV01201 as well as Gordon, Stoltz, and Larsen, supra].) Of these five recently filed actions, four have been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court (Larsen, Gordon, Stoltz, and Wolson, supra), and one has been filed in San Diego Superior Court (Cummings, supra). The Court is not aware of any new actions filed in northern California. Therefore, the Court’s ruling includes the 14 actions identified in the Petition as well as the other actions identified in subsequent filings (together, the “Included Actions”). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule. 3.531, subd. (b).) The Court includes a full list of the “Included Actions” at the bottom of this ruling. Petitioner seeks to coordinate the Included Actions in Alameda County Superior Court, and to have the First District Court of Appeal designated as the reviewing court. (Petition, ¶ 5.) Defendants Botanic Tonics and 7-Eleven submit “partial” and “conditional” oppositions, which agree that the Included Action should be coordinated as a complex civil proceeding but argue SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases 03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23 that the coordinated proceeding should be placed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Botanic Tonic Opposition, p. 2 [“Defendants agree that the case should be coordinated as a complex civil proceeding, but Defendants jointly assert that the coordinated proceeding should be placed in Los Angeles County…”]; 7-Eleven Opposition, p. 2 [“While 7-Eleven does not oppose coordination of these Feel Free cases, … Los Angeles County Superior Court is a more suitable venue for coordination of these cases…”].) With limited exception, counsel for all defendants alleged across all the Included Actions have joined Botanic and 7-Eleven in the partial/conditional opposition which agrees to coordination but opposes venue, arguing the cases should be coordinated out of Los Angeles County Superior Court rather than Alameda County Superior Court. (Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 6 [noting the exceptions as counsel for defendants Cavedwellers, Inc. and A 1 Food & Liquor Inc., who did not respond to the inquiry, and defendant Sencco, who took no position to the location of coordination].) LEGAL FRAMEWORK A petition for coordination “shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions are complex…and that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.) Coordination of civil actions sharing common questions or fact or law is appropriate if it “will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel, the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel, the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1; see also Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal. App.5th 626.) DISCUSSION As an initial matter, counsel for Petitioner declares, and Defendants do not dispute, that the Included Actions are complex. (Dharap Decl., ¶ 14.) The only action pending in Alameda County—Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., Case No. 23CV031152—has been deemed complex. (1/5/24 Order re Complex Determination.) The remaining Included Actions include several separately represented parties and are the subjects of this coordination petition. (Dharap Decl., ¶¶ 3-9; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400, subd. (b)(3) & (4).) Accordingly, the Court finds the Included Actions are complex pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.400. A. Coordination Will Promote the Ends of Justice Section 404.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure outlines various factors that courts consider when ruling on a petition of coordination. While the parties here disagree on the proper venue, no party disputes that coordination is SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases 03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23 appropriate. (MPA, p. 5; Botanic Opposition, p. 3 [“Accordingly, Defendants do not address the factors determine whether cases should be coordinated…”]; Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 6.) Considering the factors in section 404.1, the Court finds that coordination is appropriate. Here, Plaintiffs assert the same causes of action based upon the same product. (Dharap Decl., ¶ 15 & Exs. 1-14.) Thus, the Included Actions share common questions of fact and law. Further, coordination would benefit the parties, witnesses, and counsel. Given that more than 14 cases are currently pending in various courts throughout California, the parties, witnesses, and counsel would benefit from coordinating pre-trial discovery. The Included Actions are in relatively early stages of litigation and there has been no significant motion practice. (Dharap Decl., ¶ 17.) The first filed action (Torres) was filed in April of 2023, and Defendants have filed answers (as opposed to demurring). (Hewlett Decl., ¶ 5.) Further, coordination would alleviate the burden of various courts having to manage each case individually and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings. Therefore, considering the relevant factors, the Court finds that coordination for all purposes will promote the ends of justice. B. Venue and Reviewing Court In considering the appropriate venue, the coordination motion judge considers “any relevant factors” including the number of actions pending in a particular court; the stage of litigation; the efficient use of court resources; the location of witnesses and evidence; the convenience of parties and witnesses; and the ease of travel to and availability of accommodations in particular locations. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.530, subd. (b).) In favor of Alameda County, Petitioner argues that it is the location of the first filed action (i.e., Torres) and that a nationwide class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. (MPA, p. 7.) Thus, Alameda County would allow depositions to be scheduled “back-to-back in person” instead of “having to force the witness to fly out to Northern California for the class action and then to Southern California for the JCCP.” (Ibid.) In favor of Los Angeles, Defendant Botanic Tonics argues that “the vast majority” of filed cases have been filed in Los Angeles County (13 of the 19 Included Actions), while 2 have been filed in San Diego County, and only 1 has been filed in Alameda County. (Botanic Opp., p. 4; Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3.) Defendants’ counsel and “at least one key PMK witness” are based in Los Angeles. (Refiled Hewlett Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant Botanic represents that “the vast majority of Plaintiffs reside in L.A. County” and thus relevant witnesses, medical providers, and records will be based in Los Angeles (Botanic Opp., p. 5.) Defendant further argues that “the vast majority of the 7-Eleven franchisee stores visited by Plaintiffs are in L.A. County.” (Ibid.) Defendant 7-Eleven agrees, asserting that “most of the witnesses, including plaintiffs, their treating doctors, the retailers and franchisees from which Plaintiffs have allegedly obtained the Feel Free product, and any other percipient witnesses more likely than not reside in Southern SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases 03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23 California.” (7-Eleven Opp., p. 4.) Considering the relevant factors, the Court recommends Los Angeles County Superior Court as the venue. Here, the Court does not find that the pending federal class action in the Northern District weighs in favor of hosting the state coordinated proceedings in Alameda County. As Petitioner states: “Regarding depositions, Petitioner proposes conducting these by remote video conference (e.g., Zoom) wherever practicable to minimize the time and cost of travel for parties, witnesses, and counsel.” (MPA, p. 6.) Thus, Petitioner’s representation of the need to schedule depositions “back-to-back” does not weigh in favor of Alameda County. Insofar as travel is required, since Petitioner’s counsel represents Plaintiffs in the superior court cases and in the federal class action, presumably counsel could coordinate (e.g., cross-notice) depositions to avoid unnecessary travel. (Moreover, this deposition convenience argument presumes that the federal and state court actions would be proceeding at the same pace, which is an assumption too uncertain to be persuasive.) Other factors are neutral. Alameda and Los Angeles Counties are both serviced by multiple airports with adequate accommodations. Both Alameda and Los Angeles County Superior Courts have complex departments capable of handling JCCPs. The remaining factors weigh in favor of Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Botanic Tonics is headquartered in Los Angeles, and most of the Included Actions are pending in Los Angeles (and the majority of subsequently filed actions are also in Los Angeles or San Diego). Counsel for Defendants Botanic and 7-Eleven have offices in Los Angeles, and counsel for several of the other defendants are located in Los Angeles and elsewhere in Southern California (e.g., co-counsel for Durga Ma, Inc., et al.; counsel for Sunlife Organics, LLC). Further, most of the Plaintiffs in the Included Actions are either from Los Angeles (Rosenfield, Correa, Cseri, Norfleet) or allege to have purchased the product in Los Angeles (Tatham; Miller, Jon; Miller, Dustin). Consistent with California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(2), this Court engaged in an administrative telephone conference with the Honorable David S. Cunningham, the Assistant Supervising Judge of the Complex Division of Los Angeles Superior Court and the presiding judge of Dept. 11 at the Spring Street Courthouse, who had no objection to the coordinated proceedings being assigned to Los Angeles Superior Court. Therefore, the Court recommends that the Included Actions and any appropriately noticed add- on actions be coordinated in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Correspondingly, the Court recommends that the reviewing court be the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 404.2. ORDERS 1. The Court orders that Petitioner’s petition to coordinate is GRANTED, good cause appearing that the coordination of the Included Actions is appropriate. (Code SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases 03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23 Civ. Proc., § 404.1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.529.) 2. The Court recommends Los Angeles County Superior Court as the proper venue for the coordination action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.3; California Rules of Court, rule 3.530.) 3. The Court recommends the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, as the reviewing court having appellate jurisdiction and the court in which any petition for a writ relating to any subsequent order in this proceeding shall be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.2.) 4. The Court STAYS further proceedings in the individual actions pending order of the coordination trial judge. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.529, subd. (b).) The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a copy of this Order in each of the Included Action and serve a copy of this Order on all parties in each of the Included Action by personal delivery, fax or next day mail and email. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.510.) Plaintiff must also submit a copy of this Order to the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.511.) As used herein, the Included Actions are: 1. Torres v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV031152 – Filed April 13, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (Product Liability); 2. Tatham v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV02585 – Filed June 9, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 3. Miller, Jon v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV03251 – Filed July 14,2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 4. Chavez v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV001168 – Filed September 14, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Napa (Product Liability); 5. Miller, Dustin v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04360 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 6. Rosenfield v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04350 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 7. Correa Jr. v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04346 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 8. Moynihan v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CIV04394 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo (Product Liability); 9. Cseri v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV04347 – Filed September 15, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); 10. De La Vega v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 37-2023-00046119-CU-PL-CTL – Filed October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Product Liability); 11. Oxley v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23CV424990 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Product Liability); 12. Miller, Dylan v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05007 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases 03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23 13. Norfleet v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05008 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability); and 14. Todd v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., No. 23SMCV05006 – Filed October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Product Liability). 15. Cummings v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., San Diego Superior Court No. 37-2023-00052818- CU-PL-NC; 16. Larsen v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00516; 17. Gordon, et al. v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00517; 18. Stoltz v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., L.A. Superior Court No. 24SMCV00520; 19. Wolson v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al., LA Superior Case No. 24CV01201. PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the Court’s order, and no hearing will be held unless the tentative ruling (TR) is contested consistent with the below directives. FIRST, the party seeking to contest the TR must contact the opposing counsel or unrepresented party to (1) state their basis for contesting the TR, and (2) engage in good faith meet and confer efforts to avoid need to contest the TR. The court REQUIRES these meet and confer efforts to take place IN PERSON, via telephone or video conference. Parties must file any ensuing stipulated agreement and [proposed] order that differs from the TR prior to 4:00 PM the day before the scheduled hearing, with courtesy copies emailed to the court at dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov. SECOND, if agreement is not reached after good faith, in person meet and confer efforts, the party seeking to contest the TR must notice their contest through eCourt and by email to Dept. 23 at dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the scheduled hearing. The email to Dept. 23 must detail the parties meet and confer efforts and the remaining areas of disagreement. Remote hearing access information will only be provided after good faith meet and confer efforts have been demonstrated. The notification through eCourt must similarly specify the areas of the TR being contested. (Please see below for additional eCourt directions.) NOTICE VIA BOTH eCOURT AND EMAIL IS REQUIRED TO CONTEST A TR. CONTESTING TR’S VIA eCOURT 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA JCCP5313: Botanic Tonic Cases 03/15/2024 Hearing on Petition for Coordination in Department 23 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Chavez, Jose v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al. Napa County Superior Action No. 23CV001168 3 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am 4 employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is 20 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. 5 On April 2, 2024, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as NOTICE 6 OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER on the interested parties in this action as follows: 7 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 8 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address mc.luppino@VeenFirm.com to the persons at the e- 9 mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 11 foregoing is true and correct. 12 Executed on April 2, 2024, at San Francisco, California. 13 14 Margo Luppino 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE VEEN FIRM LLP 20 HAIGHT STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 673-4800 www.veenfirm.com -1- 1 SERVICE LIST Chavez, Jose v. Botanic Tonics, LLC, et al. 2 Napa County Superior Action No. 23CV001168 3 Robert S. Arns Shayan Heidarzadeh 4 Jonathan E. Davis HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP Shounak S. Dharap 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 700 5 Robert C. Foss Oakland, CA 94612 Truong X. Pham Tel: (510) 768-0628 6 ARNS DAVIS LAW Fax: (510) 768-0651 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor shayan.heidarzadeh@huschblackwell.com 7 San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel: (415) 495-7800 Attorney for Defendant 7-ELEVEN, INC. 8 Fax: (415) 495-7888 rsa@arnslaw.com 9 jed@arnslaw.com ssd@arnslaw.com 10 rcf@arnslaw.com txp@arnslaw.com 11 jap@arnslaw.com dos@arnslaw.com 12 Attorney for Plaintiff JOSE CHAVEZ 13 Bradford J. DeJardin John S. Purcell 14 Patricia Ball Alberts Douglas E. Hewlett HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP Eitan G. Berkowitz 15 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2850 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP Los Angeles, CA 90071 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor 16 Tel: (213) 337-6550 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Fax: (213) 337-6551 Tel: (213) 629-7400 17 brad.dejardin@huschblackwell.com Fax: (213) 629-7401 patricia.alberts@huschblackwell.com john.purcell@afslaw.com 18 douglas.hewlett@afslaw.com Attorneys for Defendant 7-ELEVEN, INC. eitan.berkowitz@afslaw.com 19 Attorneys for Defendants BOTANIC 20 TONICS, LLC; DURGA MA, INC., ESHWARAMMA, INC. 21 Mandy L. Sims Colette F. Stone 22 WOLFE & WYMAN LLP Jane E. Bednar 1310 H Street STONE & ASSOCIATES 23 Sacramento, CA 95814 2125 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 101 Tel: (916) 912-4700 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 24 Fax: (949) 475-9203 Tel: (925) 938-1555 mlsims@ww.law Fax: (925) 938-2937 25 crjones@ww.law jbednar@stonelawoffice.com cpernell@stonelawoffice.com 26 Attorneys for Defendant ISHAQ TRADING CORPORATION Attorneys for Defendant NAPA VALLEY 27 PETROLEUM, INC 28 THE VEEN FIRM LLP 20 HAIGHT STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 673-4800 www.veenfirm.com -2-