IN RE: Huel, Inc., Heavy Metal Products Liability Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: HUEL, INC., HEAVY METAL
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 3177
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in the Southern District of Florida Settecasi action listed on
Schedule A moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of
New York. This litigation consists of five actions pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule
A. In addition, the parties have informed the Panel of an additional action pending in the Eastern
District of New York.1 Responding plaintiffs in three actions and the Eastern District of New York
potential tag-along action support centralization in the Eastern District of New York. Defendants
Huel, Inc., and Huel, Ltd. (collectively Huel), and plaintiff in the Northern District of California
Sarayli action oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs in these proposed class actions are individuals that purchased
Huel protein powder, such as Huel Black Edition High-Protein Complete Meal (Huel Black). They
allege that Huel misleadingly marketed Huel Black as a safe supplement when it contained heavy
metals, such as lead.
Although the parties’ overlapping allegations may raise some common factual questions,
we are unconvinced that centralization is warranted for so few actions. Because of consolidation
that has occurred among cases pending in the Eastern District of New York, this litigation is spread
among only four judges in four districts. The Huel defendants, arguably the ones who would bear
the heaviest burden in litigating in multiple districts, assert that alternatives to centralization are
superior to creating an MDL for so few cases. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California
Sarayli action state that they are amenable to alternatives to centralization. Plaintiffs in the
Southern District of Florida Settecasi and Southern District of New York Gouldbourne actions
have overlapping counsel, making informal coordination between those actions feasible. Plaintiffs
* Judge David C. Norton did not participate in the decision of this matter. One or more Panel
members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have renounced their
participation in these classes and participated in this decision.
1 This action and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(i),
7.1, and 7.2.
Case MDL No. 3177 Document 42 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 3

-2-
in those actions provide no reason why they, unlike the Sarayli plaintiffs, are unable to informally
coordinate their pretrial proceedings with those pending in the Eastern District of New York.
Proponents of centralization argue that self-coordination is not feasible because plaintiffs
in the actions pending outside of the Eastern District of New York will not consent to transfer of
their actions to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. However, that is not the
only means of informal coordination. For example, we have explained that suitable alternatives
to Section 1404 transfer may include (1) making depositions applicable in each action, (2)
stipulating that discovery relevant to more than one action may be used in all those actions, and
(3) seeking orders from the relevant courts directing the parties to coordinate their pretrial efforts.
In re Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Pat. Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244
(J.P.M.L. 1978). We are not convinced that these and other alternatives to centralization will be
ineffectual.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is
denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton Matthew F. Kennelly
Roger T. Benitez Dale A. Kimball
Madeline Cox Arleo
Case MDL No. 3177 Document 42 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 3

IN RE: HUEL, INC., HEAVY METAL
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 3177
SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
SARAYLI, ET AL. v. HUEL, LTD., C.A. No. 5:25-08878
Southern District of Florida
SETTECASI v. HUEL, INC., C.A. No. 0:25-62507
Eastern District of New York
RILEY v. HUEL, INC., C.A. No. 1:25-05783
TAL, ET AL. v. HUEL, INC., C.A. No. 1:25-06508
Southern District of New York
GOULDBOURNE v. HUEL, INC., C.A. No. 1:25-08921
Case MDL No. 3177 Document 42 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 3