Kelly Ryan v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.

Filing 21

Certified Transfer Order. Signed by MDL Panel on 10/4/16. (ADR) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

«f-42016 I

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

rTcHSllS DlSTRlCi uuurti

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

VIRQllllA

IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED
FLOORING DURABILITY MARKETING AIVD SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2743

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:' Plaintiffs in an action in tlic Central District of California {Abad) move under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the Central District of California. These cases
concern the sale and niarketing of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for residential use. plaintiffs allege that their
laminate flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised industry standard. Plaintiffs' motion
includes the sixteen actions listed on Schedule A and pending, following transfer of thineen actions
pending in the Central District of California during the briefing of the motion for centralization, in sixteen
different districts. Since plaintiffs filed this motion, the parties have notified the Panel of fifteen additional

potentially related actions pending in fourteen districts.'
Defendant Lumber Liquidators. Inc.. supports centralization but suggests Ihe Eastern District of
Virginia as the transferee district. Lumber Liquidators also states that lead counsel in MDL No. 2627^
•'have no opposition to these 'durability' cases being transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia.""

After considering the argurnent of counsel, we find that the actions in this litigation involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Virginia will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote thejust and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common facmal questions regarding the durability of Chinese-manufactured laminate
flooring sold by Lumber Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particulariy the issue of whether the
laminatescomply with the allegedly warranted industrystandard for use in residential settings. Plaintiffs
allege that the products improperly scratch, fade, exhibitedgecurling, buckle,delaminate, chip.cup. peel,
warp, bow and/or bubble. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial

One or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have
renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this decision.

' These actions, and any other related actions, are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules
1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.

^ Inre: Lumber Liquidators Cliiiiese-Manufaclured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2015).
A True Copy. Teste:

Clerk, U.S«-pistricl Court

f--'
Deputy Clerk

_

rulings (including on issues ofclasscertification andDaubert motion practice), andconserve theresources
of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Virginia is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. Lumber Liquidators is based in this district in Toano. Virginia, and relevant documents and
witnesses likely will be found there. We are confident that Judge Anthony J. Trcnga, who presides over
MDL No. 2627, which involves allegedly inappropriate emissions of formaldehyde from the same laminate
flooring and some of the same plaintiffs as here, will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the Eastern

District of Virginia and. with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Anthony J. Trenga for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair

Charles R. Breyer
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Marjorie O. Rendell
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED
FLOORING DURABILITY MARKETLNG AND SALES
MDLNo. 2743

PRACTICES LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California

ABAD, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:15-3795
Middle District of Florida

GREEN V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 8:16-2142
Northern District of Georgia

WEBSTER V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 4:16-260
Western District of Kentuck\

HENSLEY V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 3:16-534
Western District of Louisiana

GOODLING V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS. INC., C.A. No. 3:16-1201
District of Massachusetts

K.UN1CK.1 V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS. INC., C.A. No. 4:16-11705
Eastern District of Missouri

DUNKIN V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 4:16-1347
Southern District of Mississippi
BOLIN V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC.. C.A. No. 3; 16-00590
District of Nevada

RYAN V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16- 1978

-A2-

District of New Jerse\

MAN20 V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS. INC.. C.A. No. 2:16- 5112
Eastern District of New York

HOTALING. ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS. INC.. C.A. No. 2: i 6-4646
Western District of North Carolina

BENNETT v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 1:16-281
Northern District of Ohio

LEONARD. ETAL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC.. C.A. No. 1:16-2091
Eastern District of Oklahoma

STRONG V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 6:16-357
Western District of Pennsylvania

MCPHERSON V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS. INC., C.A. No. 2:16-1263
Southern District of West Vircinia

JACKSON V. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 2:16-07947