DE BECERRA v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.

Filing 18

ORDER denying (161) Motion for New Trial in case 1:00-ml-09374-SEB-JMS; denying (16) Motion for New Trial in case 1:02-cv-05635-SEB-JMS-The Court's 1/30/09 Order on Remand and corresponding judgment stand. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/29/2009. Associated Cases: 1:00-ml-09374-SEB-JMS, 1:02-cv-05635-SEB-JMS-CANTU AND SOTO(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION IN RE BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC TIRES PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION ______________________________________ THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: LIZABETH SALAZAR CANTU and JUAN E. SOTO, Plaintiffs, vs. BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION and BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Master File No. IP-9373-C-B/S MDL No. 1373

1:02-cv-5635 SEB-JMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (CM-ECF Docket No. 16) On January 30, 2009, in accordance with the Seventh Circuit's Mandate, we issued our Order on Remand concluding that: (1) the parties' stipulation of dismissal and proposed order filed with this Court on December 28, 2005, did, indeed, contain "scrivener's errors" and, contrary to what the parties had written in those documents, the parties had not intended to voluntarily dismiss Plaintiffs Cantu and Soto from this action; and even if Plaintiffs Cantu and Soto had not been voluntarily dismissed from this action, their claims against Bridgestone had to be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens because the facts and legal analysis set forth in the Court's February 27, 2004, ruling on the issue of forum non conveniens as to Ford and Firestone applied in like manner to their claims against Bridgestone.

(2)

A corresponding judgment was entered on the Court's docket on February 2, 2009.

1

Displeased with our decision, Plaintiffs Cantu and Soto filed a "Motion for New Trial," which they also characterize as a "Rule 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment." [CM-ECF Docket No. 16.] They argue that we should not have relied on our February 27, 2004, ruling in dismissing their claims because we issued a subsequent ruling on July 16, 2007, in series of other cases involving accidents that occurred in Mexico and found that Mexico was not an available alternate forum for the litigants in those other cases. In essence, Plaintiffs argue that our February 27, 2004, ruling on the issue of forum non conveniens in their case was superseded by our July 16, 2007, ruling on the issue of forum non conveniens in the other cases. They submit that the July 16, 2007, ruling now stands as the controlling case and, thus, they should be permitted to proceed to trial in the United States. Bridgestone responds that the Court has already rejected Plaintiffs' argument. It points out that not only was the availability of Mexico as an available alternate forum discussed in the parties' original moving papers, the issue of whether the July 16, 2007, ruling should control was briefed by the parties in their post-remand submissions and rejected by this Court in its January 30, 2009, Order on Remand, which expressly adopted and incorporated the February 27, 2004, ruling. Bridgestone is correct. Based on the parties' filings in January 2009, this Court was fully cognizant of Plaintiffs' argument that the Court's July 16, 2007, ruling in the other cases should now control their case, but the Court did not accept that argument. The Court's January 30, 2009, Order on Remand and corresponding judgment stand. Plaintiffs Motion for New Trial is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 09/29/2009 Date: _________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE BARKER, JUDGE SARAH EVANS United States District Court United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

2

Copies to: Joseph Weinstein SQUIRE, SANDERS, & DEMPSEY, LLP 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Squeare Cleveland, OH 44114 Colin Smith HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Tomas G. Stayton BAKER & DANIELS 300 N. Meridian Street Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Mark J.R. Merkle KRIEG DEVAULT, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2800 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Steve Hastings THE HASTINGS LAW FIRM 101 North Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 300 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Daniel P. Byron BINGHAM MCHALE LLP 10 West Market Street Market Tower, Suite 2700 Indianapolis , IN 46204 Knox D. Nunnally VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1001 Fannin Suite 2500 Houston , TX 77002 Thomas Christopher Trent JOHNSON SPALDING DOYLE WEST & TRENT 919 Milam Suite 1700 Houston , TX 77002
Marcella Algarra BROCK & PERSON PC 1506 Bexar Crossing Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78232 Kyle Harold Dreyer HARTLINE DACUS DREYER AND KERN 6688 N. Central Expwy Ste 1000 Dallas, TX 75206 Burgain G. Hayes DELGADO ACOSTA BRADEN JONES & HAYES 111 Congress Avenue Suite 455 Austin, TX 78701 Manuel O. Narvaez 326 S. Enterprise Pkwy Corpus Christi, TX 78405 Robert J. Patterson PATTERSON AND ASSOCITES 101 N. Shoreline Ste 210 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Ricardo R. Reyna 1506 Bexar Crossing San Antonio, TX 78232 Joseph A. Rodriguez RODRIGUEZ COLVIN & CHANEY P.O. Box 2155 Brownsville, TX 78522

3

Donald Scott Thomas, JR CLARK THOMAS WINTERS & NEWTON P.O. Box 1148 Austin, TX 78767

4