In re CP4 Fuel Pump Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.

Citation412 F.Supp.3d 1365
Decision Date18 December 2019
Docket NumberMDL No. 2919
Parties IN RE: CP4 FUEL PUMP MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chair Before the Panel :* Plaintiffs in nine actions move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of California, or, in the alternative, the Eastern District of Michigan. The litigation consists of ten actions: two actions each in the Northern District of California, the Southern District of Florida, and the Eastern District of Michigan, three actions in the Southern District of Texas, and one action in the District of New Jersey, as listed on the attached Schedule A. The parties have notified the Panel of two potential tag-along actions.

Moving plaintiffs seek, in the first instance, the creation of a single MDL. In the alternative, they request that the Panel create three defendant-specific MDLs, but assign them to the same judge. Responding parties' positions vary. Plaintiffs in the District of New Jersey action support the Section 1407 motion. Defendants General Motors LLC (GM), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and FCA US LLC (FCA) oppose the motion. If the Panel orders centralization over their objections, GM and Ford argue for defendant-specific MDLs in the Eastern District of Michigan, and FCA favors centralization in either the Eastern District of Michigan or the Southern District of Texas.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing 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 this litigation. The actions involve allegations that the Bosch-supplied CP4 fuel pump in certain GM, Ford, and FCA vehicles equipped with diesel engines is defective, and that plaintiffs have suffered economic losses (e.g. , repair costs, diminution in value, etc.) as a result. Centralization thus might, to some extent, avoid duplicative discovery and other pretrial proceedings, and conserve the resources of the parties and the judiciary.

Several considerations, however, cut against centralization. First, there are only ten constituent actions and two tag-alongs, and each involves only one vehicle manufacturer (i.e. , there are five constituent cases against GM, four against Ford, and only one against FCA). The risk of redundant discovery and inconsistent class certification rulings is accordingly less significant.1 That risk is further diminished in that plaintiffs in nine of the ten actions, as well as one of the two tag-alongs, are represented by the same attorneys.2

Second, notwithstanding the existence of certain common factual issues (such as whether the CP4 pump can function properly with U.S. diesel fuel), these cases also present numerous automaker-specific and plaintiff-specific issues. Individualized issues include each automaker's design and testing of the subject vehicles, its knowledge of the alleged defect, its interactions with Bosch, and its marketing and communications with consumers. Plaintiffs' own allegations indicate that the alleged defect does not manifest itself in the same way from vehicle to vehicle, and thus that considerable discovery likely will target plaintiffs' individual – and varying – ownership experiences. For example, in Southern District of Texas Berry (against FCA), the named plaintiff Kevin Lee Berry alleges that he purchased a used 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee in April 2017, and experienced "catastrophic failure" of the fuel pump system in June 2018. See Berry First Am. Compl. ¶ 10. In Southern District of Florida Ginebra (against GM), the named plaintiff Frank Ginebra asserts that he purchased a used 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 HD – with approximately 89,000 miles on the odometer – in October 2017, but that a "catastrophic CP4-induced failure" did not occur until November 2018. See Ginebra First Am. Compl. ¶ 8. And in Eastern District of Michigan Droesser (against Ford), the named plaintiff Mark William Droesser does not allege any specific failure of the CP4 pump or engine in the 2015 Ford 350 that he purchased new in May 2014 (and that now has approximately 115,906 miles on it). Rather, Mr. Droesser more generally contends that because of the CP4 pump, the vehicle has not provided the "advertised combination of durability, power, reliability, and fuel efficiency of diesel that Plaintiff relied upon." See Droesser Compl. ¶ 9.

Third, the three defendant vehicle makers are competitors. The Panel is "typically hesitant to centralize litigation against multiple, competing defendants which marketed, manufactured and sold similar products."3 In particular, centralizing competing defendants in the same MDL likely would complicate case management due to the need to protect trade secret and confidential information.4 "In addition, a multi-defendant MDL may prolong pretrial proceedings, because of, inter alia , the possible need for separate discovery and motion tracks, as well as the need for additional bellwether trials."5 The record before us contains little, if anything, to overcome our usual reluctance to centralize actions against different defendants in one MDL – for example, there is no allegation of a conspiracy involving the three vehicle makers. In this instance, centralizing these ten single-defendant cases likely would result in significant inefficiencies and delay, without producing any substantial offsetting benefits.

Moving plaintiffs' alternative...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Blackmore v. Smitty's Supply, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 31 d2 Março d2 2020
    ...In support, Plaintiffs cite two recent MDL Panel cases denying motions to transfer: In re CP4 Fuel Pump Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability Litigation , 412 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (J.P.M.L. 2019), and In re StockX Customer Data Security Breach Litigation , 412 F. Supp. 3d 1363 (J.P.M......
  • In re Stockx Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.
    • United States
    • Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
    • 18 d3 Dezembro d3 2019

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT