Hunter et al v. Sears, Roebuck and Company et al

Filing 29

COPY OF CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER from the Multidistrict Litigation Panel, Docket No. 1999; case will be transferred to USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin. (Clerk to wait for certified copy of order from the USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin to transfer the file) (Attachments: # 1 E-mail to Clerk)Ordered by Unassigned Judge. (GJG, )

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Dec 05, 2008

IN RE: LAWNMOWER ENGINE HORSEPOWER MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II)

MDL No. 1999

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the entire Panel*: Ten of the twelve common defendants1 have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in either the Southern District of Illinois or the Northern District of Illinois. All responding parties agree that centralization is appropriate, but variously suggest one of the following as transferee district: the District of New Jersey, the Northern District of Ohio, the Eastern District of Texas, the Middle District of Florida or the Eastern District of Louisiana. This litigation presently consists of 23 actions listed on Schedule A and pending as follows: two actions each in the Middle District of Alabama, the Northern District of California, the Western District of North Carolina, the Northern District of Ohio and the Eastern District of Texas; and one action each in the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Illinois, the District of Maryland, the District of Minnesota, the District of Montana, the District of Nebraska, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of South Dakota and the Eastern District of Tennessee.2 On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions share factual questions relating to whether manufacturers of lawnmowers and/or lawnmower engines conspired to materially overstate and/or fraudulently advertise the horsepower produced by their lawnmower products. The Panel previously denied a motion for transfer
*

Judge Vratil took no part in the disposition of this matter.

1

Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Deere & Co.; Tecumseh Products Co.; Briggs & Stratton Corp.; Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.; The Toro Co.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; The Kohler Co.; Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc.; and Platinum Equity, LLC. The Panel has been notified that sixteen related actions have recently been filed. These actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001).

2

-2under Section 1407 brought by plaintiffs in three of 23 actions now before the Panel. In re: Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 571 F.Supp.2d 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2008). In the past four months, however, the litigation has grown considerably, underscoring the need for economies of scale that centralized pretrial management of these actions will provide. In re FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation (No. II), 381 F.Supp.2d 1380, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2003). Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. Given that this litigation involves 39 known purported statewide class actions pending across the United States, many districts would be an appropriate transferee forum. We select the Eastern District of Wisconsin as transferee district, because (1) parties and witnesses are clustered in various Midwestern states, and (2) this district has the capacity to handle this assignment. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Lynn S. Adelman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II Chairman J. Frederick Motz Kathryn H. Vratil* W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. Robert L. Miller, Jr. David R. Hansen

IN RE: LAWNMOWER ENGINE HORSEPOWER MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II)

MDL No. 1999

SCHEDULE A

Middle District of Alabama Jesse Crew, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-715 Robert Wright v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-759 Northern District of California Carl Phillips, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:08-2671 Estaban Marvilla v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:08-3202 Middle District of Florida Deborah Day v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 6:08-1478 Southern District of Florida Jason R. Borras, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 0:08-61309 Southern District of Illinois Ronnie Phillips, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:06-412 District of Maryland Kenneth Purce v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-2317 District of Minnesota Jay Moore, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 0:08-5021 District of Montana Kenneth J. Doppler, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 9:08-123 District of Nebraska Eric L. Hunter, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:08-3170

- A2 MDL No. 1999 Schedule A (Continued)

District of New Jersey William Fritz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:08-2545 Eastern District of New York Scott Hinrichs v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-3256 Southern District of New York Kevin Bowen, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-7223 Western District of North Carolina Matthew J. Baskerville v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:08-385 Thomas Luckman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 5:08-95 Northern District of Ohio James E. Gallucci, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-1988 Richard L. Immerman, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-2112 Eastern District of Pennsylvania David Tshudy, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-3802 District of South Dakota Mike Kaitfors, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:08-4135 Eastern District of Tennessee Jack Champion, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:08-62 Eastern District of Texas Gene Bennett, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-344 Phillip A. Hoeker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-350