In re Welding Rod Products Liability Litigation, 1535.
| Decision Date | 23 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 1535.,1535. |
| Citation | 269 F.Supp.2d 1365 |
| Parties | In re WELDING ROD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
This litigation currently consists of the two actions in the Eastern District of Louisiana and one action in the Southern District of Mississippi as listed on the attached Schedule A.1 Before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, brought by plaintiffs in one Eastern District of Louisiana action for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of these three actions. Moving plaintiffs initially supported centralization in either the Eastern District of Louisiana or the Southern District of Mississippi. Defendant Caterpillar, Inc., expressly takes no position with respect to the motion. All other responding defendants2 support the motion for transfer, but suggest the Northern District of Ohio as transferee district. At oral argument, moving plaintiffs asserted that they now support the Northern District of Ohio as transferee district as well. Plaintiffs in one action and one potential tag-along action in the Southern District of Mississippi, as well as plaintiffs in various state court actions, initially opposed the motion; however, at oral argument, representatives for some, if not all, of these plaintiffs stated that they now also support centralization in the Northern District of Ohio.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these three actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions present claims of personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to welding fumes. The actions thus share factual questions concerning, inter alia, whether exposure to welding fumes causes the conditions complained of by plaintiffs and whether defendants knew or should have known of any health risks associated with exposure to welding fumes. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Northern District of Ohio is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. We observe that all responding parties now agree upon centralization in this district, and that the corporate headquarters for several of the defendants are located within this district, meaning relevant witnesses and documents will likely be found there. We also note that the judge to whom we are assigning these actions is an able jurist with experience in multidistrict products liability litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on the attached Schedule A are transferred to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Kathleen McDonald O'Malley for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
MDL-1535—In re Welding Rod Products Liability Litigation
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jerkins v. Lincoln Elec. Co.
...involving claims seeking damagesfor personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to welding fumes. In re Welding Rod Products Liability Litigation, 269 F.Supp.2d 1365 (J.P.M.L.2003). Several dozen of those cases are governed by Alabama law, and the MDL court has identified three issues of......
-
Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric Co.
...case is part of a larger multi-district litigation regarding inhalation of manganese fumes by welders. In re Welding Rod Prods. Liab. Litig., 269 F.Supp.2d 1365 (J.P.M.L.2003). In April, May, and June 2005, the multi-district litigation court conducted three weeks of Daubert hearings to tes......
-
Jowers v. Lincoln Electric Co.
...M. O'Malley in the Northern District of Ohio to coordinate welding fume cases for pre-trial proceedings. See In re Welding Rod Prods. Liab. Litig., 269 F.Supp.2d 1365 (J.P.M.L.2003). Jowers' suit against the Manufacturers, alleging a failure to warn regarding the dangers of manganese neurot......
-
Jerkins v. Lincoln Electric Co.
...involving claims seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to welding fumes. In re Welding Rod Products Liability Litigation, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (J.P.M.L. 2003). Several dozen of those cases are governed by Alabama law, and the MDL court has identified three issue......