Slaughter et al v. Uponor, Inc. et al

Filing 634

ORDER Granting 600 Motion to Intervene. FURTHER ORDERED that 582 Motion for Status Conference is GRANTED; the Status Conference is set on Monday, January 7, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. in Las Vegas Courtroom 4B before Chief Judge Robert C. Jones. FURTHER ORDERED that 581 Motion to Sever is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 583 Motion for Clarification is GRANTED. The stays in the member cases are LIFTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 584 Motion for Case Management is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/26/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
EDWIN K. SLAUGHTER et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
vs.
9
UPONOR, INC. et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-01223-RCJ-GWF
ORDER

This case arises out of the manufacture, marketing, distribution, and installation of

13

allegedly defective plumbing components, which Plaintiffs allege caused harm, or threaten to

14

cause harm, to their residences. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for a status

15

conference, to sever claims, to clarify stays, and to enter a casemanagement order and discovery

16

plan and scheduling order. Non-party Centex Homes has moved to intervene for the purpose of

17

opposing the motions.

18

I.

19

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class but withdrew that motion and moved for

20

voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule

21

41. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, instructing the Court to determine whether the

22

Plaintiff homeowners complied with the inspection requirements of Nevada Revised Statutes

23

(“NRS”) section 40.647(1) and whether Rule 41 or NRS section 40.647(2)(a) applied to a motion

24

to voluntarily dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to dismiss without prejudice, addressing

25

the issues identified by the Court of Appeals. The Court denied the motion to dismiss because

1

although all named Plaintiffs had failed to file Chapter 40 notices before filing the Complaint,

2

making dismissal without prejudice under state law mandatory, and making a Rule 41 analysis

3

moot, it was clear that Plaintiffs would simply refile the case and that it would be removed to this

4

Court again. The Court also noted that named Plaintiffs would withdraw and be replaced by new

5

named Plaintiffs who had complied with Chapter 40’s notice requirements. The Judicial Panel

6

on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) has denied a motion to transfer parts of the thirteen pending

7

related cases, including the present case, to a multidistrict litigation case in the District of

8

Minnesota: In Re: Uponor, Inc. F1960 Plumbing Fitting Products Liability Litigation, MDL-

9

2393 (the “MDL Case”).

10

II.

DISCUSSION

11

First, the Court will grant Centex Homes’ motion to intervene for the limited purpose of

12

filing an opposition to the present motions. Second, the Court will grant the motion for a status

13

conference to discuss the consolidation of the thirteen related cases in this District, nine of which

14

are pending before this Court, and some of which have already been consolidated into two

15

smaller groups. Third, the Court will not sever claims against Uponor Defendants at this time,

16

but will discuss the issue at the status conference. Fourth, the Court grants the motion to clarify

17

that the stay in the Fulton Park, Dakota, and Wolinsky cases, which are consolidated with the

18

present case, expired upon issuance of the Court of Appeals’ mandate in the present case,

19

because the stays of those cases were based purely upon the pendency of the appeal in the present

20

case. Fifth, the Court will not enter a case management order or scheduling order at this time.

21

The Court will discuss a case management order at the status conference, and the parties should

22

direct their requests for a scheduling order to the magistrate judge after the Court indicates its

23

intentions concerning a case management order at the status conference.

24

///

25

///
Page 2 of 3

1

CONCLUSION

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 600) is GRANTED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 582) is

4

GRANTED, the Status Conference is set on MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2013 at 11:00 A.M., in

5

LAS VEGAS COURTROOM 4B, before Judge Robert C. Jones.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Sever (ECF No. 581) is DENIED.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 583) is

8
9
10
11
12

GRANTED. The stays in the member cases are LIFTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Case Management (ECF No. 584) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of November, 2012.

13
14
15

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 of 3