Jenkins et al v. General Motors Company

Filing 32

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to The Eastern District of Michigan. (sxbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2018)

Case MDL No. 2818 Document 33 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 3
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy
of the original on file in this office.
Clerk, U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Michigan
By: s/ S Schoenherr
Deputy

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS CORP AIR
CONDITIONING MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2818

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Defendants General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC,
and General Motors LLC (collectively, GM) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this
litigation concerning allegedly defective vehicle air conditioning systems in the Eastern District of
Michigan. Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Michigan action support GM’s motion in its entirety.1
This litigation consists of four actions pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule A.2 No party
opposes centralization. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California Jenkins action and the
Northern District of Texas Bell action support centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan and
suggest, respectively, alternative transferee districts of the Northern District of California and the
Northern District of Texas. Plaintiffs in a Western District of Texas potential tag-along action
support centralization in the Western District of Texas.
After considering the argument of counsel, we find that the actions in this litigation involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization 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.
The actions involve common factual issues arising from three similar putative nationwide class
actions and one putative California statewide class action that concern the design, manufacture and
performance of the air conditioners in several models of GM vehicles, spanning model years from

*

One or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have
renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this decision.

1

Plaintiff in the Eastern District of New York action (Won) did not respond to the motion to
centralize. By operation of Panel Rule 6.1(c), which states in relevant part that “[f]ailure to respond
to a motion shall be treated as that party’s acquiescence to it,” plaintiff is deemed to support
centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiff Won later submitted a waiver of oral
argument in which he stated that he supported centralization in the Northern District of California.

2

The Panel has been notified of two potentially related actions pending in the Middle District of
Tennessee and the Western District of Texas. These actions, and any other related actions, are
potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.

Case MDL No. 2818 Document 33 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 3

-22014-2017.3 Plaintiffs allege that certain components in the air conditioning system are too weak
to hold the pressure of the coolant, which builds up when the system is on. This, in turn, leads to
cracks and leaks during normal operation, which allow air conditioning refrigerant to escape and
eventually lead to the premature failure of the air conditioning system. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly on class certification; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Michigan is an appropriate transferee district.
The district, which enjoys the support of most responding parties, is where relevant documents and
witnesses may be found, inasmuch as defendant GM is based there. Further, this district offers a
readily accessible and convenient transferee forum. We are confident that Judge Matthew F.
Leitman, who already has taken initial steps to organize the cases before him, will steer this litigation
on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
of the Eastern District of Michigan are transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Matthew F. Leitman for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action pending there and listed on Schedule A.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

3

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Subject vehicles include the following: Cadillac Escalade (model years 2015-2017), Chevrolet
Silverado 1500 (model years 2014-2016), Chevrolet Suburban (model years 2015-2017), Chevrolet
Tahoe (model years 2015-2017), GMC Sierra 1500 (model years 2014-2016) and GMC Yukon
(model years 2015-2017).

Case MDL No. 2818 Document 33 Filed 02/01/18 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS CORP AIR
CONDITIONING MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2818

SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
JENKINS, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:17!05864

18-10507

Eastern District of Michigan
TANGARA, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, C.A. No. 4:17!12786
Eastern District of New York
WON v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!04819

18-10508

Northern District of Texas
BELL, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!00183

18-10509