Herrera et al v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER from MDL Panel REMANDING matter back to the District Courts from which they were transferred. (Attachments: # 1 Order)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Case 8:11-cv-00100-JVS-FMO Document 13 Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of12of Page ID #:54
Case MDL No. 2151 Document 352-1 Filed 11/17/11 Page
2

1
2

JS-6

3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
SACV 11-00100 JVS(FMOx)

9
10

IN RE: Toyota Motor Corp.
Unintended Acceleration Marketing,
Sales Practices, and Products Liability
Litigation

Member Case in No.

13

This document relates to:

ORDER REMANDING CASES TO

14

8:11-cv-00100 Bartlett
8:10-cv-00604 Fox
8:10-cv-01371 Herrera
8:10-cv-01771 Messinger
8:10-cv-01004 Rookard
8:10-cv-00998 Sims
8:10-cv-01916 Welch

TRANSFEROR COURTS

11

8:10ML 02151 JVS (FMOx)

12

15
16
17
18
19

On October 14, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

20 Litigation (“JPML”) issued its Order Denying Transfer in Dennis Gloyna, et al. v.
21 Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-11 (E.D.
22 Ky.). (See In re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales
23 Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2151 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 14, 2011
24 (Docket No. 334) (copy attached).) The Gloyna action arose out of a collision
25 involving a 2001 Toyota Avalon, a make and model of vehicle which is not alleged
1

Case 8:11-cv-00100-JVS-FMO Document 13 Filed 10/27/11 Page 2 of22of Page ID #:55
Case MDL No. 2151 Document 352-1 Filed 11/17/11 Page
2

1 to use an electronic throttle control system (“ETCS”). (Id. at 1.) In denying
2 transfer, the JPML reasoned that, through amended pleadings and discovery, the
3 focus of the current MDL has narrowed primarily to claims implicating the use of
4 ETCS. (Id.)
5

Thereafter, this Court identified a number of cases currently pending on the

6 present multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) docket that likewise involve vehicles that
7 are not alleged to use an ETCS.
8

Consistent with the JPML’s Order Denying Transfer in the Gloyna action,

9 and because the focus of the present MDL has been narrowed to issues common to
10 vehicle models that feature ETCS, the Court hereby remands the following actions
11 to the district courts from which they were transferred:
12

Transferor Court and
Plaintiff Name

C.D. Cal. Case No.

13
14
15

Lisa Bartlett
Lucille Fox
Wilma Herrera
Jeffrey Messinger
Nancy Leach

Case No.
3:10-6817 (D.N.J.)
7:10-2166 (S.D.N.Y.)
2:10-924 (D.Nev.)
2:10-976 (S.D. W.Va.)

8:11-100
8:10-604
8:10-1371
8:10-1771

16

8:10-1004
Rookard
17 Mack Sims
8:10-998
Amelia Welch
8:10-1916
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19

3:10-224 (E.D. Tenn.)
2:10-1427 (E.D. La.)
10-4276 (D. Minn.)

20
DATED:

October 27, 2011

21
22

___________________________
JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
2