Koty et al v. Windsor Window Company et al

Filing 19

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2688) Transferring 3 action(s) to Judge Lynn S. Adelman in the E.D. Wisconsin.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 4/7/2016. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2688, ILN/1:15-cv-05343, MN/0:15-cv-01932, SC/9:14-cv-04734, WIE/2:15-cv-01041 (TB)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: WINDSOR WOOD CLAD WINDOW
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2688

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in an action (Ritchie) pending in the District of South Carolina
moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the four actions listed on the attached Schedule A in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, where another of the actions is pending. The two other constituent
actions are pending in the Northern District of Illinois and the District of Minnesota. The Panel has
been informed of three additional related federal actions, which are pending in the Southern District
of Indiana, the Western District of New York, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.1
Common defendants Windsor Window Company and Woodgrain Millwork, Inc. (collectively
Windsor) oppose centralization. If the Panel orders centralization over Windsor’s objections, then
the company favors selection of the District of South Carolina as transferee district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that centralization in
the Eastern District of Wisconsin will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions – all of which are either
putative nationwide or statewide class actions – share factual questions arising from allegations that
windows in two Windsor product lines, Pinnacle and Legend Hybrid, are defective in that purported
deficiencies in Windsor’s design, engineering, and manufacturing practices2 cause the windows to
leak, and the leaks eventually result in wood rot. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources
of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

*

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.
1

These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2.
2

Plaintiffs point to, inter alia, allegedly inadequate sealing of the windows, as well as
problems with the windows’ cladding that cause or contribute to an increase in the windows’
moisture content.

-2In opposing centralization, Windsor argues that informal coordination and cooperation by
the involved parties and courts are preferable to an MDL. We find this argument unconvincing.
Given the number of actions and districts, as well as the involvement of a number of unique
plaintiffs’ counsel, we conclude that formal centralization under Section 1407 is warranted.
We select the Eastern District of Wisconsin as the transferee district for this litigation. Two
related actions already are pending in this district. The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, to whom we
assign this litigation, is an experienced jurist, and we are confident that he will steer the proceedings
on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Eastern District of Wisconsin 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

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: WINDSOR WOOD CLAD WINDOW
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2688

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Illinois
KOTY, ET AL. v. WINDSOR WINDOW COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-05343
District of Minnesota
SCHILLER, ET AL. v. WINDSOR WOOD COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:15-01932
District of South Carolina
RITCHIE v. WINDSOR WOOD COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 9:14-04734
Eastern District of Wisconsin
DAVIA, ET AL. v. WINDSOR WOOD COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-01041