412 F.Supp.3d 1365 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2019), MDL 2919, In re CP4 Fuel Pump Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation

Docket Nº:MDL No. 2919
Citation:412 F.Supp.3d 1365
Opinion Judge:KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chair
Party Name:IN RE: CP4 FUEL PUMP MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Judge Panel:Before KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chair, ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, R. DAVID PROCTOR, CATHERINE D. PERRY, NATHANIEL M. GORTON, MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, DAVID C. NORTON, Judges of the Panel.
Case Date:December 18, 2019
Court:United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Page 1365

412 F.Supp.3d 1365 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2019)

IN RE: CP4 FUEL PUMP MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2919

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

December 18, 2019

Before KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chair, ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, R. DAVID PROCTOR, CATHERINE D. PERRY, NATHANIEL M. GORTON, MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, DAVID C. NORTON, Judges of the Panel.

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chair

Page 1366

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 U.S. 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.

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP