In re Ford Motor Co. Speed Con. Deactiv. Switch, MDL 1718.
| Decision Date | 28 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. MDL 1718.,MDL 1718. |
| Citation | 398 F.Supp.2d 1365 |
| Parties | In re FORD MOTOR CO. SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Michael T. Iley, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al., M.D. Florida, C.A. No. 8:05-1139 Robert Nicholas Dill, Sr., et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al., M.D. Florida, C.A. No. 8:05-1234 Joseph T. Whittington v. Ford Motor Co., E.D. Louisiana, C.A. No. 2:05-2469 Marcus Ebow v. Ford Motor Co., E.D. Michigan, C.A. No. 2:05-70781 Arlene J. Castrow, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., W.D. Washington, C.A. No. 3:05-5422 |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in the Middle District of Florida and one action pending in each of the following districts: the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the Western District of Washington.1 Defendants2 move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Michigan action and the Western District of Washington action support centralization, but prefer transfer to the Western District of Washington. Plaintiffs in the Middle District of Florida actions and the Eastern District of Louisiana action oppose transfer; should the Panel centralize these actions, the former plaintiffs would favor their district as transferee district, while the latter plaintiff would opt for the Western District of Washington.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these five actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Michigan will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions are putative class actions that share factual questions regarding whether certain Ford vehicles were equipped with defective or defectively-installed speed control deactivation switches. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with respect to questions of class certification), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
Objecting plaintiffs cite the unique qualities of their respective actions, such as the scope of the proposed class and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Bryan v. Ford Motor Co.
...Michigan (the “transferee court”) for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See 398 F.Supp.2d 1365 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2005). The J.P.M.L. found that the actions that formed the beginnings of MDL–1718 “share[d] factual questions regarding whether cert......
-
In re Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation Switch Litigation
...them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In re Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation Switch Prods. Liab. Litig., 398 F.Supp.2d 1365 (J.P.M.L.2005). Plaintiffs generally oppose the transfer of the cases, arguing there is no common issue of fact in th......
-
In re: Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactiv., MDL No. 1718.
...with defective or defectively-installed speed control deactivation switches. See In re Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation Switch Products Liability Litigation, 398 F.Supp.2d 1365 (J.P.M.L.2005). Plaintiffs in the Florida action can present their motion to remand the action to state c......
-
In re: Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation, MDL No. 1718.
...with defective or defectively-installed speed control deactivation switches. See In re Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation Switch Products Liability Litigation, 398 F.Supp.2d 1365 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2005). Plaintiffs argue against transfer that, inter alia, these actions should be excl......