In re Seaworld Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation (No. II)
Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny SeaWorld’s
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2640 — IN RE: SEAWORLD MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (No. II)
Northern District of California ANDERSON, ET AL. v. SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT, C.A. No. 3:15-02172
Southern District of California HALL v. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., C.A. No. 3:15-00660
GAAB, ET AL. v. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., C.A. No. 3:15-00842
SIMO, ET AL. v. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., C.A. No. 3:15-01022
Certain Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this docket have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in the decision. Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle topk no part in the decision of this matter.
. Examples of the alleged misrepresentations include the following: (1) orea life spans in captivity are equivalent to their life spans in the wild; (2) collapsed dorsal fins are normal; (3) SeaWorld does not separate calves and mothers; and (4) captivity in general does not harm oreas.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.