In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liab.

• Decision Date: 15 June 2009
• Docket Number: MDL No. 2047.
• Citation: 626 F.Supp.2d 1346
• Parties: In re: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

626 F.Supp.2d 1346

In re: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

MDL No. 2047.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

June 15, 2009.

Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., Judges of the Panel.

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in two Southern District of Florida actions move, respectively, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of certain actions listed on Schedule A in the Southern District of Florida. The two motions collectively encompass ten actions, four actions in the Southern District of Florida, three actions in the Middle District of Florida and one action each in the Northern District of Florida, Eastern District of Louisiana, and Southern District of Ohio.¹

Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., a defendant in a Middle District of Florida action (Culliton), initially opposed the motion and supported centralization in the Middle District of Florida in the alternative; at oral argument this defendant appeared to fully support centralization in the Middle District of Florida. Venture Supply, Inc., and Porter-Blaine Corp., two defendants in the related action in the Eastern District of Virginia, oppose inclusion of that action, which is not embraced by either motion, in any multidistrict proceedings at this time and ask that any transfer of the action be considered at a later date.

Plaintiff in the Southern District of Ohio action supports centralization but suggests the Southern District of Ohio as the transferee district. Plaintiffs in a related action in the Southern District of Alabama initially suggested centralization in that district, but at oral argument these plaintiffs seemed to support centralization in the Middle District of Florida or the Eastern District of Louisiana. All other responding parties support centralization in the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida or the Eastern District of Louisiana.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these ten actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Louisiana will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share factual questions concerning drywall manufactured in China, imported to and distributed in the United States, and used in the construction of houses; plaintiffs in all actions allege that the drywall emits smelly, corrosive gases. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery, including any discovery on international parties; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly those with respect to class certification issues; and conserve the resources of the parties, their couns...