Waterfall Homeowners Association et al v. Viega, Inc. et al

Filing 71

ORDERED that case 2:11-cv-01498-JCM-VCF is REASSIGNED to Chief Judge Jones and Magistrate Judge Foley for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/18/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5

WATERFALL HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

6

Plaintiffs,

7

v.

8

VIEGA, INC, et al.,
Defendants.

9

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-01498-JCM -VCF
ORDER

10
Before the court are defendants Viego, Inc., et al’s notices of related cases. (Docs #44 and #45).
11
Background
12
The plaintiffs’ complaint stems from alleged damages caused by “potable-water-delivery
13
systems [that] utiliz[e] defective high zinc brass Vanguard Viega-brand or Wirsbo Uponor-brand fittings
14
and . . . high zinc content brass plumbing components.” (Doc #1). Prior to the filing of the action
15
before this court, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a putative class action in the Eighth Judicial District Court of
16
Nevada (subsequently removed to this court) entitled Fulton Park Unit Owners’ Association v. PN II,
17
Inc. d/b/a/ Pulte Homes of Nevada, et al. (Case No. 11-cv-00783-RCJ-CWH)(hereinafter “Fulton
18
action”). The plaintiffs in the Fulton action alleged claims relating to defective “high zinc brass
19
plumbing components.” Thereafter, plaintiffs’ counsel filed another putative class action (subsequently
20
removed to this court) entitled Robert and Martha Wolinsky v. Carina Corporation (Case No. 11-cv21
00830-RCJ-CWH)(hereinafter “Wolinsky action”). The Wolinsky action also alleged claims relating
22
to defective brass plumbing components.
23
On October 27, 2011, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones entered an order in the Fulton action
24
comparing the Fulton action with the Wolinsky action and other similar actions filed in this district.
25
(#43-4 Exhibit D). Judge Jones held that the complaints, all arising out of defective yellow brass
26

1

plumbing fittings, were “largely duplicative of one another and should all be consolidated.” Id. Both

2

the Fulton action and the Wolinsky action were consolidated into Slaughter v. Uponor, Inc. (Case No.

3

2:08-cv-01223-RCJ-GWF)(hereinafter “Slaughter action”). Id. Judge Jones ordered the parties to “file

4

a notice in the Slaughter docket whenever another substantially similar case is filed in or removed to

5

a court of this District.” Id.

6

Pursuant to Judge Jones’ order, on November 21, 2011, defendants filed two notices of related

7

cases. (Docs #44 and #45). Defendants assert that the action before this court and Charleston and

8

Jones, LLC, et al v. Uponor, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 11-cv-1637-KJD-GWF) are “substantially the same”

9

as the Slaughter action. Defendants ask this court to consolidate both of the actions into Slaughter,

10

because Judge Jones is “already familiar with the underlying allegations.” Id. Defendants argue that

11

if the cases are not consolidated, it would result in a “substantial duplication of labor.” Id.

12

Request To Consolidate

13

Prior to filing the notices of related cases (docs #44 and #45), the defendants filed a motion to

14

dismiss, or in the alternative, for consolidation into the Slaughter action (Case No. 08-cv-01223-RCJ-

15

GWF). (Doc #43). In the motion, defendants argue that consolidation is necessary because the cases

16

are substantially similar or even identical in nature. Id. Defendants assert that the “class allegations of

17

the Fulton Park Class Action, the Wolinsky Class Action and the instant [action] are the same or

18

virtually identical,” and that the proposed class in the instant action is encompassed within the Fulton

19

action’s class. Id. Defendants also contend that the alleged defect, relief sought, factual allegations,

20

and even many parties and attorneys in the class actions (previously consolidated into Slaughter)

21

relating to the defective zinc content in plumbing components are “virtually identical” to those in the

22

action before this court. Id.

23

In the plaintiffs’ opposition (doc #66), they recognize that Judge Jones requested to be notified

24

of similar defective zinc actions in this district. Plaintiffs’ counsel concedes that “there are a lot of

25

claims or cases that involve . . . yellow brass plumbing systems,” but assert that they filed the actions

26

2

1

separately “to preserve individual rights.” (Doc #66). Plaintiffs agree with defendants that the similar

2

actions should be consolidated, but, in light of the fact that many actions are pending in different

3

districts, argue that consolidation would be better handled by the recently filed multi-district litigation

4

petition. (Doc #66).

5

Discussion

6

In these circumstances, to avoid substantial duplication of labor if the actions were heard by

7

different district or magistrate judges, the above captioned action shall be reassigned to Chief Judge

8

Jones and Magistrate Judge Foley. See Local Rule 7-2.1. The request to consolidate will be addressed

9

following reassignment.

10

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

11

IT IS ORDERED that the above captioned case (Case No. 2:11-cv-01498-JCM-VCF) is

12
13

REASSIGNED to Chief Judge Jones and Magistrate Judge Foley for all further proceedings.
DATED this 18th day of January, 2012.

14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3