Balero et al v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.

Filing 70

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to Eastern District of Virginia by MDL Panel (MDL 2627). (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2015)

POLE
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

JiH 1 2 2085

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

CL£RICU.S. DISTRICT COURT

ALQ^ORIA. VIRGINIA

IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED
FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2627

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel;' Plaintiffs in an action in the Northern District ofCalifornia (Conte) move under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California. These cases
concern the sale and marketing of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as compliant with regulations ofthe California Air Resources Board
and other applicable regulations, plaintiffs allege that their laminate flooring emits illegal and unsafe levels
of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. Plaintiffs' motion included the ten actions listed on Schedule A
and pending in seven districts. Since plaintiffs filed this motion, the parties have notified the Panel of 113

potentiallyrelated actions filed in various districts.'
No party opposes centralization, and the parties have proposed a wide variety ofpotential transferee
districts. Defendants Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., Lumber Liquidators
Services, LLC, and Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC (collectively Lumber Liquidators) suggest
centralization in the Eastern District of Virginia. Numerous plaintiffs have responded to the motion,
variously suggesting centralization in the following districts: the Central, Eastem and Northern Districts
of California, the Northern and Southern Districts of Florida, the Eastem District of Louisiana, the
Southern District of Ohio, the District of South Carolina, the Southern District of Texas and the Eastem

District of Virginia.

After considering the argument of counsel, we find that the actions in this litigation involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastem District of Virginia will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that
its Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with Califomia Air Resources Board standards and
other legal requirements governing the emissions of formaldehyde. Centralization will eliminate

*Judge MarjorieO. Rendell did not participatein the decision of this matter. Additionally, certain
Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this docket have renounced their
participation in these classes and have participated in the decision.

' These and anyother relatedactions are potentialtag-alongactions. See Panel Rules 1.1 (h), 7.1 and
7.2.

-2-

duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings (including on issues of class certification and
Daubert motion practice), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

While this litigationcould be centralized in any number of the suggested transferee districts, we
are persuaded that the Eastern District of Virginia is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.
LumberLiquidators is based in this district in Toano, Virginia,and relevant documentsand witnesseswill
likely be found there. At oral argument and in their briefs, some plaintiffs supporting transfer to other
districts suggested that this MDL was not suited to the speed of the district's "Rocket Docket." When
pressed at oralargument, however, plaintiffs failed to articulate preciselyhowproceeding at anexpeditious
pacewould prejudice theparties. Centralization inthe Eastern District of Virginia allows us to assign this
litigation to a district to which we have transferred relatively few MDLs. Further, centralization allows
for the coordination of this litigation with a securities action against Lumber Liquidators that was filed in
the Eastern District of Virginia in November 2013, which has grown to include allegations concerning
formaldehyde emissions from Chinese-made laminate flooring. SeeIn re: LumberLiquidatorsHoldings,
Inc. Securities Litigation, E.D. Virginia, C.A. No. 4:13-cv-l57.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the Eastern

District of Virginiaand, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Anthony J. Trenga for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

'Ce.

Sarah S. Vance
Chair

Charies R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

A True Copy, Tests;
Clerk, U.S. District Court

Deputy Clerk

IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED
FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2627

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California

TYRRELL, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:15-01615
KURD, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 5:15-00424
Northern District of California

BALERO, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 3:15-01005
CONTE, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-01012
EZOVSKJ, ET AL v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:15-01074
Northern District of Florida

CONSTATINE v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:15-00130
Southern District of Florida

BADIAS V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-20876
Northern District of Illinois

BLOOMFIELD v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-01956
Eastern District of North Carolina

CAIOLA V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL, C.A. No. 5:15-00094
Western District of Oklahoma

MARTIN, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:15-00233