Montes v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

Filing 7

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-84). CASE TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California. MDL No. 2672. (Robles, S)

Download PDF
Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2904 Filed 02/13/17 Page 13 3 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 2250 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of of UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2672 (SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −84) On December 8, 2015, the Panel transferred 56 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See 148 F.Supp.3d 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2015). Since that time, 1,184 additional action(s) have been transferred to the Northern District of California. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Breyer. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Northern District of California for the reasons stated in the order of December 8, 2015, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. Feb 13, 2017 FOR THE PANEL: Jeffery N. Lüthi Clerk of the Panel I hereby certify that the annexed instrument is a true and correct copy of the original on file in my office. ATTEST: SUSAN Y. SOONG Clerk, U.S. District Court Northern District of California by: Date: Deputy Clerk 13 February 2017 Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2904 Filed 02/13/17 Page 23 3 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 2250 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of of IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2672 SCHEDULE CTO−84 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION CALIFORNIA CENTRAL CAC 2 17−00652 CAC 2 17−00701 CAC 2 17−00704 CAC 2 17−00705 CAC 2 17−00769 CAC 2 17−00775 CAC 5 17−00142 CAC 5 17−00144 CAC 5 17−00158 Thomas Heinrich Worring v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al Lindsey M. Bixler v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al Maureen A. Powers v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al Hermelina R. Schneider v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al Michael Bear v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc et al Dustin Pearlman v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc et al John S. McCallum v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al Victoria West v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al Terry W. Pack v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al CALIFORNIA EASTERN CAE 1 17−00120 CAE 2 17−00214 Montes v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Reaves, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CAS CAS 3 3 17−00139 17−00169 Amato v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al Reyes v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al 16−02933 STANTON v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. INDIANA SOUTHERN INS 1 Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2904 Filed 02/13/17 Page 33 3 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 2250 Filed 02/13/17 Page 3 of of MAINE ME 1 17−00038 STATE OF MAINE v. VOLKSWAGEN AG et al 17−00012 Cantu et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al TEXAS SOUTHERN TXS 1 Opposed 2/8/17

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?