Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN RE: HILL’S PET NUTRITION, INC. DOG FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY MDL No. 2887 LITIGATION Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ This Document Relates to All Cases, Except:
Diana Anja Eichorn-Burkhard v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-CV- 02672-JAR-TJJ; and
Bone, et al. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-CV-02284-JAR-TJJ (cat and dry dog food-related claims only. This document DOES apply to all wet dog food-related claims in the Bone complaint).
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE PROGRAM, AND APPOINTMENT OF SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL AND SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 2 of 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... ii
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
ARGUMENT ...... 2
I. The Court Should Grant Final Approval to the Settlement ...... 2
II. The Objections, While Heartfelt, Do Not Have Legal Merit ...... 4
A. Vicky Swaim ...... 4
B. Leiann Hawley ...... 6
CONCLUSION ...... 9
i Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 3 of 15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Aragon v. Clear Water Prod. LLC, No. 15-cv-02821-PAB-STV, 2018 WL 6620724 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2018) ...... 4
Browning v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 04-cv-01463-HRL, 2007 WL 4105971 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2007) ...... 6
Elna Sefcovic, LLC v. TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC, 807 F. App’x 752 (10th Cir. 2020) ...... 4
Fager v. CenturyLink Commc’ns, LLC, No. 14-cv-00870-JCH-KK, 2015 WL 13298517 (D.N.M. June 25, 2015) ...... 4
Gradie v. C.R. England, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00768-DN, 2020 WL 6827783 (D. Utah Nov. 20, 2020) ...... 6
Hall v. AT & T Mobility LLC, No. 07-cv-05325-JLL, 2010 WL 4053547 (D.N.J. Oct. 13, 2010) ...... 6
Hapka v. CareCentrix, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02372-KGG, 2018 WL 1871449 (D. Kan. Feb. 15, 2018) ...... 3, 6
In re Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc., No. 12-cv-02074-WJM-CBS, 2015 WL 3582265 (D. Colo. June 5, 2015) ...... 2
In re Samsung Top-Load Washing Mach. Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 997 F.3d 1077 (10th Cir. 2021) ...... 2
In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., 357 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (D. Kan. 2018) ...... 3
In re Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 11-md-02247-ADM-JJK, 2012 WL 2512750 (D. Minn. June 29, 2012) ...... 6
Nakamura v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 17-4029-DDC-GEB, 2020 WL 5118070 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2020) ...... 8
O’Dowd v. Anthem, Inc., No. 14-cv-02787-KLM-NYW, 2019 WL 4279123 (D. Colo. Sept. 9, 2019) ...... 2
Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia v. DaVita Inc., No. 17-CV-0304-WJM-NRN, 2021 WL 1387110 (D. Colo. Apr. 13, 2021) ...... 8
ii Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 4 of 15
Rothe v. Battelle Mem’l Inst., No. 1:18-cv-03179-RBJ, 2021 WL 2588873 (D. Colo. June 24, 2021) ...... 3
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) ...... 4
Watson v. Ray, 90 F.R.D. 143 (S.D. Iowa 1981) ...... 3
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ...... 2, 7, 8
iii Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 5 of 15
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs1 respectfully submit this reply in support of their motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement, final certification of the Settlement Class, approval of the Notice program, and confirmation of the appointment of Settlement Class Counsel, the Class Representatives, and the Settlement Administrator, ECF No. 119. As detailed in the opening brief, the $12.5 million
Settlement is an outstanding result for the Settlement Class, and the Court should grant it final approval. ECF No. 120.
Importantly, the Settlement Class agrees. The deadline for filing requests for exclusion and objections, June 21, 2021, has passed (see Prelim. Approval Order, ECF No. 105 at 13), and the reaction of the Settlement Class is overwhelmingly positive. A total of just two requests for exclusion (Joseph M. Gerrety and Patty J. Gardner) have been received from a Settlement Class that likely numbers in at least the tens of thousands,2 a miniscule percentage. See Declaration of
Jeanne C. Finegan, APR, Concerning Implementation of Class Notice, ECF No. 127-1 at ¶ 13
(“Finegan Declaration” or “Finegan Decl.”). Furthermore, there have been only two purported objections to the proposed Settlement (Leiann Hawley and Vicky Swaim).3 See id. at ¶ 14;
Objection of Leiann Hawley, ECF Nos. 124 (original objection), 128 (revised objection).4 Notably,
1 Capitalized terms shall have the meaning the Class Settlement Agreement ascribes to them. See generally Class Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 98-1. 2 While still subject to review for validity, more than 30,000 claims have been received. 3 Ms. Swaim’s objection, which was received by the Settlement Administrator but not submitted to the Court, and a copy of Ms. Hawley’s objection were filed as Exhibit A to the Finegan Declaration. ECF No. 127-1 at 10-19. 4 The parties also received a letter from Melissa Cieto, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (with her personal email address redacted). Ms. Cieto wanted the Parties to be aware of the passing of her dog Brett and his unique story, but did not object to any terms of the Settlement. She expressed her intention not to participate in the Settlement and, as of July 6, 2021 (four days after the deadline for the submission of all claims), the Claims Administrator has not received a claim from her.
1 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 6 of 15
no governmental entity that received Notice has objected to the Settlement.
As explained below, the objections to final approval of the proposed Settlement, while reflecting the understandable anger and anguish of the loss of a beloved family pet, are without legal merit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Court should overrule the objections in their entirety and grant the motion for final approval of the Settlement.
ARGUMENT
I. The Court Should Grant Final Approval to the Settlement
In determining whether to finally approve a proposed class action settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, courts in the Tenth Circuit consider the factors set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) as well as the four factors the Tenth Circuit has traditionally considered in evaluating class action settlements. In re Samsung Top-Load Washing Mach. Mktg., Sales
Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 997 F.3d 1077, 1087 (10th Cir. 2021). In assessing whether final approval is appropriate, Tenth Circuit courts also consider the reaction of the class to the proposed settlement. O’Dowd v. Anthem, Inc., No. 14-cv-02787-KLM-NYW, 2019 WL 4279123, at *12 (D.
Colo. Sept. 9, 2019) (listing the “reaction of class members to the proposed settlement” as an additional factor that may be relevant to final approval); In re Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc.,
No. 12-cv-02074-WJM-CBS, 2015 WL 3582265, at *3 (D. Colo. June 5, 2015) (“The reaction of the class to the proffered settlement . . . is perhaps the most significant factor to be weighed in considering its adequacy . . . .”). A low number of objections and exclusions weighs in favor of granting final approval. E.g., Hapka v. CareCentrix, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02372-KGG, 2018 WL
1871449, at *5 (D. Kan. Feb. 15, 2018) (“The low percentage of objections demonstrates the reasonableness of the Settlement and supports the Settlement’s approval.”). While Plaintiffs fully addressed Rule 23(e)(2) and the traditional Tenth Circuit factors in their opening brief, ECF No.
2 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 7 of 15
120, Plaintiffs here provide the Court with further detail as to the reaction of the Settlement Class to the proposed Settlement, now that the deadline to object or opt out has passed.
As discussed above, the Settlement Class’ reaction to the proposed Settlement has been overwhelmingly positive. The robust Notice program was fully implemented, and yet only two
Settlement Class Members opted out and only two have raised objections. Finegan Decl., ECF No.
127-1 at ¶¶ 13-14. “The fact that the class members have reacted so overwhelmingly in favor of the settlement further supports a finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable and adequate.”
In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., 357 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1103 (D. Kan. 2018); see also
Rothe v. Battelle Mem’l Inst., No. 1:18-cv-03179-RBJ, 2021 WL 2588873, at *4 (D. Colo. June
24, 2021) (“No timely objection was raised by any Class Member to the proposed settlement, and less than 5% of all Class Members have chosen to opt out. The Court gives these factors substantial weight in approving the proposed settlement.”).
While “a settlement can be found to be fair even if a substantial number of members object to it,” Watson v. Ray, 90 F.R.D. 143, 147 (S.D. Iowa 1981) (granting final approval of settlement regarding conditions of confinement at prison despite the opposition of all named plaintiffs to the settlement), the fact that so few objections were received here is “indicative of the adequacy of the settlement,” Elna Sefcovic, LLC v. TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC, 807 F. App’x 752, 762 (10th Cir.
2020) (unpublished) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 118 (2d Cir.
2005)); accord Aragon v. Clear Water Prod. LLC, No. 15-cv-02821-PAB-STV, 2018 WL
6620724, at *3 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2018); Fager v. CenturyLink Commc’ns, LLC, No. 14-cv-00870-
JCH-KK, 2015 WL 13298517, at *4 (D.N.M. June 25, 2015). Accordingly, the overwhelmingly positive reaction of the Settlement Class further supports that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
3 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 8 of 15
II. The Objections, While Heartfelt, Do Not Have Legal Merit
The Long Form Notice was publicly filed, ECF No. 98-3, and approved by the Court.
Prelim. Approval Order, ECF No. 105 at ¶ 8. The Long Form Notice was publicly posted on the
Settlement Website.5 The Long Form Notice included the requirements necessary to lodge an objection to the Settlement, including that any objection must: be received by the Clerk of the
Court and by each of the attorneys listed in the Long Form Notice by June 21, 2021; identify that the Settlement Class Member has submitted a valid claim; and be personally signed with an actual ink signature by the Settlement Class Member. Id.
The objections by Vicky Swaim and Leiann Hawley are meritless, and the Court should overrule them in full. In addition, at least with regard to Ms. Swaim, not all of the requirements to object to the Settlement were satisfied.
A. Vicky Swaim
Ms. Swaim did not satisfy all of the requirements for submitting a valid objection to the
Settlement. She did not express any intention of filing a claim and as of July 6, 2021, four days after the deadline for the submission of any claim, the Claims Administrator has not received a claim from her. In addition, her letter was not provided to the Court. Her failure to comply with these requirements, specifically, her failure to establish she is a Settlement Class Member that has submitted a valid claim, merits overruling her objection.
The merits of her objection should be overruled as well. Ms. Swaim objects on the ground that the Settlement amount should be higher. Specifically, Ms. Swaim contends that payment of the cost of food and veterinarian bills is not sufficient compensation for Settlement Class Members
5 See http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/DocumentHandler.ashx?DocPath=/Documents/Hill_s_Long_ Form_Notice_FINAL.pdf.
4 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 9 of 15
because there are “cremation costs, the cost of a new dog, and dealing with the grief that you fed your pet a food that most likely caused his death.” ECF No 127-1 at 11. She later clarifies that she
“[does not] care about the expenses” and, instead, cares that “there is no liability for the loss of
[her] dog.” Id.
Plaintiffs certainly empathize with Ms. Swaim with respect to the grief she feels over the loss of her beloved dog, as did many Class Representatives. However, in assessing whether final approval is appropriate:
[the] Court’s role is not to determine whether the proposed settlement has achieved perfection. It is true that something could always be added to every class action settlement to make it more favorable to class members, but that is not the standard by which class action settlements should be measured. Rather . . . [the] Court’s role is limited to determining whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Hapka, 2018 WL 1871449, at *4 (emphasis added). “[S]ettlement, as a product of compromise, typically offers less than a full recovery.” Browning v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 04-cv-01463-HRL, 2007
WL 4105971, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2007). “[C]omplaining that the settlement should be
‘better’ . . . is not a valid objection.” Id.
The fact that Ms. Swaim “would prefer that all [Settlement] Class members receive greater cash benefits . . . has no bearing on whether the terms of the Settlement Agreement itself are fair and reasonable.” Hall v. AT & T Mobility LLC, No. 07-cv-05325-JLL, 2010 WL 4053547, at *8
(D.N.J. Oct. 13, 2010). “After all, a settlement is, by its very nature, a compromise that naturally involves mutual concessions.” Id.; accord Gradie v. C.R. England, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00768-DN,
2020 WL 6827783, at *6 (D. Utah Nov. 20, 2020) (rejecting objector’s contention that plaintiffs
“undervalued the claims of the Class, such that the value of the Settlement is inadequate” because
“ultimately, [the objector] raises only debatable possibilities” and “the ultimate outcome of the litigation is in doubt and Plaintiffs’ claims are far from certain”); In re Uponor, Inc., F1807
5 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 10 of 15
Plumbing Fittings Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 11-md-02247-ADM-JJK, 2012 WL 2512750, at *9 (D.
Minn. June 29, 2012) (“As a compromise, the Settlement ‘is, necessarily, a compromise between plaintiffs, who did not win their case, and defendants, who did not lose theirs. [This] settlement[], like all others, reflect[s] each side’s considered view of the risks of an adverse judgment and the value of buying peace.’”).
Furthermore, the Settlement here is not limited solely to “the cost of food and veterinarian bills for the dog,” as Ms. Swaim claims. See ECF No 127-1 at 11. While the Settlement does provide full reimbursement for the total cost of the dog food, it also provides for reimbursement for any “screening or treatment of their dog for signs consistent with consumption of excess levels of Vitamin D as a result of the use or consumption of Hill’s Products,” a concept broader than merely veterinarian bills. See ECF No. 98-3 at § 9. Moreover, depending on the total amount of the timely, valid, and approved claims, Settlement Class Members may receive up to two times the value of their claims. While Ms. Swaim characterizes the Settlement as a “stupid class action” in which “pet owners are only compensated for a few dollars,” Finegan Decl., ECF No. 127-1 at
11, the actual terms of the Settlement are far more generous. Thus, Ms. Swaim’s objection that the
Settlement Fund is not large enough does not diminish the fact that the Settlement as a whole is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Accordingly, the Court should overrule Ms. Swaim’s objections in full.
B. Leiann Hawley
Ms. Hawley’s original objection letter is dated June 16, 2021. ECF No. 124. After receiving her letter, Co-Lead Counsel reached out to Ms. Hawley to address the concerns raised in her letter and Co-Lead Counsel have had multiple conversations with her. On July 6, 2021, she personally emailed a new letter to the Court, which reflects her current and revised objections to the
6 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 11 of 15
Settlement. ECF No. 128.
At this time, Ms. Hawley maintains only two objections. First, she objects that counsel for
Defendants have any right to review allocations to class members. It is important to put this objection in context. The Settlement Agreement allows Defendants a limited right to review allocation decisions only with regard to certain dog injury claims. If the total dog injury claim is an amount below $500, such claim will be paid at the recommendation of the Settlement
Administrator, in consultation with Plaintiffs’ Settlement Class Counsel only. Counsel for
Defendants have no right to review or comment upon such a distribution.
It is only for dog injury claims greater than $500 that Defendants’ counsel may seek additional review of a claim, but only if Defendants’ counsel has a good faith belief that a specific claim merits additional review.6 In light of the unique facts in this case, allowing Defendants to raise good faith concerns about a specific claim is to the benefit of the Class as a whole to prevent potentially fraudulent claims. Ultimately, it is important to note that Defendants alone will not make any final allocation decisions. If Settlement Class Counsel and Defendants disagree on an allocation, this will be resolved by a third-party mediator.
Second, Ms. Hawley objects that the Settlement Agreement contains a two-times cap on the multiplier each class member can receive. The structure of the Settlement ensures that Class
6 “If Defendants’ Counsel has a good faith belief that a particular claim seeking reimbursement above $500 per dog requires additional review, Defendants’ Counsel and Settlement Class Counsel shall meet and confer about the claim. If the Parties are unable to agree after the meet and confer process, Settlement Class Counsel and/or Defendants’ Counsel have the right to request that the claim be reviewed by a mediator jointly selected by the Parties, whose time will be paid from the Settlement Fund for making these determinations. While the Settlement Administrator and/or Settlement Class Counsel may, in its discretion, seek input from Hill’s and Defendants’ Counsel about a claim, neither Hill’s nor Defendants’ Counsel is obligated to review all claims.” See http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/DocumentHandler.ashx?DocPath=/Documents/Hill_s_Long_ Form_Notice_FINAL.pdf.
7 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 12 of 15
Members will be fully compensated for their claims before the designated cy pres recipient could receive even a penny of any residual Settlement Funds. If there are sufficient funds, all Class
Members will receive up to two-times the total value of their claims and the Settlement Agreement allows for multiple distributions of Settlement Funds to ensure this occurs, if feasible. ECF No.
98-1. It is only after all of these actions that money could go to the cy pres recipient to assist in its valuable work assisting pets in need.7
Co-Lead Counsel are sympathetic to Ms. Hawley’s argument that class members should receive an unlimited cap on their allocation. The prolonged, hard-fought and arm’s-length mediation process, however, ended with an agreement that provided caps on the amounts injured pet claimants can recover, which addresses Defendants’ concern that class members could receive a windfall. As discussed herein, those caps are fair, adequate and reasonable in light of the applicable law, the underlying facts, and the objectives of the settlement, which include avoidance of the expense and delay of trial. In fact, Settlement Class Counsel believe that class members who have submitted claims will receive significantly more than they could have received at trial.
In the event that there are residual funds remaining, none of the facts here support rejecting this cy pres award. See, e.g., Peace Officers’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Ga., 2021 WL 1387110, at *6 (stating that courts reject cy pres awards when the parties fail to identify the proposed beneficiary or when the beneficiary is “so unrelated to the claims” that the class members would not benefit). The Settlement Agreement, the Settlement website and the Long Form Notice all
7 “District courts in the Tenth Circuit have approved cy pres awards to third-party beneficiaries in class action settlements.” Peace Officers’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Ga. v. DaVita Inc., No. 17-CV-0304-WJM-NRN, 2021 WL 1387110, at *5 (D. Colo. Apr. 13, 2021); Nakamura v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 17-4029-DDC-GEB, 2020 WL 5118070, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2020) (approving a cy pres award of more than $660,000 to a not-for-profit).
8 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 13 of 15
identified the name of the proposed cy pres beneficiary: Unleashed Pet Rescue.8
Ms. Hawley does not raise any specific concerns with Unleashed, nor could she. In the
Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Approval, Co-Lead Counsel explained the extraordinary work this no kill shelter does on behalf of pets, including providing food and veterinary care for dogs, which are issues at the heart of the claims in this litigation. ECF No. 98-9 at ¶¶ 19-21. It is also relevant to Ms. Hawley’s concerns that Unleashed does not have any existing relationship with Defendants. ECF No. 98-9 at ¶ 21.
These objections should be overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above and all of the reasons previously stated in the memorandum in support of final approval, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved. Specifically, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
(1) finally approve the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2);
(2) certify the Settlement Class and the State Subclasses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for settlement purposes only;
(3) appoint the following Plaintiffs as Class Representatives: Michelle Black, Toni Blanchard, Jack Blaser, Jeremiah Will Brigham, Stacey Caskey, Kathy Capron, Megan Carter, Kristina Centers, Linda Cole, Jennifer Cromwell, Kristin DeCroce, Molly McDowell Dunston, Sarah Ecton, Sandra Walker Evans, Jamie Fain, Beatrice Friedman, Maritza Galindo, Lafonda Guyton, Sally Hall, Marc Haughaboo, Leiann Hawley, Keith Heck, Janis Henderson, Melinda Hengel, Jessie Hollister, Sharon Hopkins, Claudia Hoyos, Janet Imfeld, Mary Ippisch, Brandy Jeter, Cara Kaufmann, Allison Kay, Kevin Kelly, Marla King, Kathy Klaassen, TJ Knowland, Lisette Kra, Teresa Krage, Rosemary Lanctot, Janet Laurin, Tammy Lechner, Stephanie Lett, Sandra Lindquist, David Lovell, Dan Marcus, Michael Markiewicz, Marnie McCown, Cheryl McMurray, Melissa Mendoza, Jeffrey Morris, Jennifer
8 See, e.g., http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/home/faqs/ at ¶ 9; ECF No. 98-1 at ¶ 5.
9 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 14 of 15
Naeve, Robert Neve, Kay Okahashi, Mary Ponce, Robin Prebe, Susan Pyper, Vanessa Roberts, Karen Rohman, Taakena Ross, Cheri Rusinack, Michael Russell, Crystal Russell, Chuck Silveira, Harmony Stidham, Kristal Summers, Catherine Teegarden, Andrew Tilles, Demetrios Tsiptsis, Luann Tyborski, Angela Wickham, and June Yoshinaga;
(4) confirm, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(B) and (g)(1), the appointment of Scott A. Kamber of KamberLaw LLC, Gary E. Mason of Mason Lietz & Klinger LLP, Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP, and Rachel E. Schwartz of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP as Settlement Class Counsel;
(5) approve the form and manner of the Notice Plan and claims process; and
(6) confirm the appointment of Kroll Settlement Administration as Settlement Administrator for the Settlement.
Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4.4(e), a proposed order will be concurrently submitted to
Chambers with this Reply.
10 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129 Filed 07/06/21 Page 15 of 15
Date: July 6, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
By: Rachel E. Schwartz Rachel E. Schwartz, KS Bar # 21782 REESE LLP [email protected] Michael Robert Reese 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 [email protected] Kansas City, Missouri 64112 100 West 93rd Street, 16th floor Telephone: (816) 714-7125 New York, New York 10025 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead, Liaison, and Interim Class Counsel Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead and Interim Class Counsel
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP KAMBERLAW LLC Gary E. Mason Scott A. Kamber [email protected] [email protected] 5101 Wisconsin Avenue Northwest, Suite 305 201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200 Washington, District of Columbia 20016 Denver, Colorado 80206 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Telephone: (303) 222-9008 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead and Interim Class Counsel Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead and Interim Class Counsel
11 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129-1 Filed 07/06/21 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 129-1 Filed 07/06/21 Page 2 of 2
March 12, 2021 Attorney Schwartz,
My name is Melissa Cieto, I was a consumer for Hills Products for many years. I am writing to you as I received paperwork regarding the Science Diet Canned Dog Food Settlement. I do not want the Defendant’s money but feel strongly that a grave, moral wrong was committed by the company. This is Brett’s story. Brett was seven weeks, six days old when my family brought him home. He was my best friend, confidant, and all-around best boy. Around nine years of age, Brett was diagnosed with gastrointestinal problems and was prescribed Hills Products, specifically Prescription ID with turkey. Brett relied on this product for his health. In February 2019 a few weeks after Brett’s fifteenth birthday, my veterinarian called to inform me that a Hills Products recall had been expanded and Brett had been consuming the tainted products for a number of weeks. Brett became ill, quickly. Upon bringing him to the vet, he was in late-stage kidney failure and had to be humanely euthanized. Brett passed on February 14, 2019.
After Brett’s passing, I was hurt and revolted to learn that the recall involving Hills Products had been known about for many months, but the Prescription ID had not been recalled with the first round. A company that my best boy relied on and one that I entrusted his health to contributed to his untimely death. I wrote the Hills Products company and I called them, no amount of money or lukewarm sympathies will bring Brett back. The Hills Products company should be held accountable for their negligence to the maximum extent possible. My dog passed away because of their oversight. Sadly, Brett’s story is one of too many. Hills Products killed my dog. I don’t want their money, being more concerned about profit over ethics cost my dog his life, there is no price I am willing to put on that. Sincerely,
Melissa Cieto