IN RE: ByHeart, Inc., Infant Formula Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: BYHEART, INC., INFANT FORMULA MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3178
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:∗ Plaintiffs in the Western District of Washington Wescott action move
under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of New York. 	The
litigation consists of nineteen actions pending in twelve districts, as listed on Schedule A. 	The
Panel has been notified of one related action pending in the Southern District of New York.1 All
responding parties support, or do not oppose, centralization in the Southern District of New York.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed
on Schedule A involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Southern District
of New York will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. 	These actions share factual questions arising from the
November 2025 recall of infant formula manufactured and marketed by ByHeart, Inc., based on
its potential contamination with Clostridium botulinum. Plaintiffs in nine actions allege that their
infant children became seriously ill with infant botulism after being fed contaminated ByHeart
formula. 	The remaining ten actions are putative nationwide and statewide class actions which
assert economic injuries on behalf of purchasers of ByHeart formula.
All responding parties support centralization. 	The actions will share factual questions
regarding the root cause of the alleged contamination, ByHeart’s manufacturing processes, and
ByHeart’s compliance with applicable FDA and other regulations. 	Centralization will avoid
duplicative fact and expert discovery as to these common issues, as well as the risk of inconsistent
pretrial rulings, particularly as to issues of expert admissibility and class certification. In addition,
centralization will conserve party and judicial resources, which is of particular importance given
that ByHeart reportedly has limited insurance coverage that will be eroded by defense costs.
∗ Judge David C. Norton did not participate in the decision of this matter. In addition, one or more
Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have renounced
their participation in these classes and have participated in this decision.
1 This and any other related actions are potential tag-alongs. See Panel Rules 1.1(i), 7.1, and 7.2.
Case MDL No. 3178 Document 61 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
The Southern District of New York is an appropriate transferee district for this MDL. All
parties support centralization in the district. ByHeart is headquartered in the Southern District of
New York, and eight actions, as well as the potential tag-along action, are pending in that district.
We assign the litigation to Judge Arun S. Subramanian, an experienced jurist who has not yet had
the opportunity to serve as a transferee judge. We are confident that he will manage the litigation
in a capable and efficient manner.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Southern District of New York are transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Arun S. Subramanian for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
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. 3178 Document 61 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 4

IN RE: BYHEART, INC., INFANT FORMULA MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3178
SCHEDULE A
District of Arizona
DEXTER, ET AL. v. BYHEART INCORPORATED, C.A. No. 3:25−08241
Central District of California
MAZZIOTTI, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−12116
Eastern District of California
BARBERA, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−03339
Northern District of Illinois
LLAPASHTICA, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
C.A. No. 1:26−00328
Eastern District of Kentucky
EVERETT, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 5:25−00422
District of Minnesota
FLOWERS, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 0:25−04383
Eastern District of New York
VALENZUELA v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−06333
Southern District of New York
ZETTERSTROM v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−09419
SCHNEIDER v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−09543
PILATO, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−09550
LINTON, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−09597
ARCHULETA v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−09714
BREARY, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−09774
RACHWAL, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−10011
NOONAN, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−10243
Case MDL No. 3178 Document 61 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 4

- A2-
Middle District of Pennsylvania
SEPULVEDA, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 1:25−02210
Northern District of Texas
FURY v. BYHEART, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−03183
Southern District of Texas
JOSEPH, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 3:25−00391
Western District of Washington
WESCOTT, ET AL. v. BYHEART, INC., C.A. No. 3:25−06039
Case MDL No. 3178 Document 61 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 4