Larry Allen v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al

Filing 19

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2792), ( 5 in MDL No. 2792), ( 2 in MDL No. 2792) Transferring 20 action(s) to Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti in the W.D. Oklahoma.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 10/4/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2792, CAC/2:17-cv-03602, CAC/5:17-cv-00203, CAE/2:17-cv-00946, DE/1:17-cv-00371, FLS/0:17-cv-61022, GAN/1:17-cv-01232, KYW/3:17-cv-00272, LAW/2:17-cv-00195, MIW/2:17-cv-00039, MN/0:17-cv-01569, NCM/1:17-cv-00171, NE/4:17-cv-03017, NJ/2:16-cv-04966, NYE/2:17-cv-02353, NYS/1:17-cv-01525, OKW/5:17-cv-00046, OKW/5:17-cv-00409, OKW/5:17-cv-00434, OKW/5:17-cv-00513, PAE/2:16-cv-03623, PAW/2:16-cv-01873, SC/6:17-cv-00988, TXS/7:17-cv-00154, TXW/5:17-cv-00163 (DP)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: SAMSUNG TOP-LOAD WASHING MACHINE
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2792

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Common defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, Samsung), together with defendants Best Buy Co., Inc., Lowe’s
Home Centers, LLC, and Sears Holdings Corporation, move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize
this litigation in the Western District of Oklahoma. This litigation currently consists of 24 actions
pending in 20 districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been
notified of two related actions.1 This litigation arises from allegations that certain Samsung top-load
washing machines have design and manufacturing defects that may cause machine parts to detach,
break apart, or explode during the spin cycle, and that a voluntary recall issued in November 2016
fails to provide adequate relief to consumers.
All responding parties support centralization, but there is some disagreement on the
transferee district and whether one action focused on the drain pump component (Wagner) should
be included in the proposed MDL. Defendant The Home Depot supports transfer of all actions on
the motion, including Wagner, to the Western District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in 20 actions
represented by shared counsel support centralization in the Western District of Oklahoma or,
alternatively, the Southern District of Texas or Eastern District of California. They further assert that
Wagner should be excluded, arguing that it concerns a categorically different defect. Plaintiffs in
the four remaining actions on the motion – Wagner, Moore, Troyan, and Cooper – support
centralization in the District of New Jersey or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York.2
They assert Wagner should be included, arguing that it involves the same Samsung washing machine
models as the actions on the motion, and common causation issues are likely to arise in all actions.

*

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

The related actions are pending in the Northern District of Illinois and the District of
Maine. These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1 and 7.2.
2

In the event those districts are not available, they suggest the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Florida, and the Central District of California.

-2In their reply brief, the moving defendants assert that the Wagner complaint alleges many of the
same design flaws and malfunction issues as the actions on the motion and, thus, should be included.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These putative class
actions share complex factual questions arising from allegations that Samsung top-load washing
machines subject to a voluntary recall issued November 4, 2016,3 suffer from design and
manufacturing defects that manifest during the spin cycle and cause components, such as the top and
drain pump, to detach, break apart, or explode. The shared factual questions include: (1) Samsung’s
design, testing, and manufacturing of the recalled washing machines; (2) whether defendants knew
or should have known of the alleged defects; and (3) the adequacy of the recall. These common
issues clearly are raised by Wagner, which alleges many of the same design flaws as the other
actions,4 involves the same washing machine models, and presents overlapping issues concerning
the adequacy of the recall remedy. Thus, Wagner will be included in the MDL. Additionally, there
is substantial overlap in the putative nationwide and statewide classes in these actions.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including
with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.
We conclude that the Western District of Oklahoma is an appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. This district provides a convenient and accessible forum for actions filed throughout
the country regarding products sold nationwide. Plaintiffs in 20 actions on the motion and all
defendants support this district, where four actions are pending. This district also is centrally located
relative to the geographically dispersed domestic defendants, which have their headquarters in
Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, Minnesota, and North Carolina. Defendant Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., located in South Korea, also supports this district. Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti, to whom we
assign this litigation, is an experienced jurist, and we are confident he will steer this litigation on a
prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Western District of Oklahoma are transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

3

See Voluntary Recall of Certain Top-Load Washers (Nov. 4, 2016) (available at:
https://pages.samsung.com/us/tlw/index.html).
4

For example, Wagner alleges that the drain pump detaches because “the Washing
Machines vibrate excessively,” and the motor components are “too powerful” for the machines,
resulting in high stress concentrations and breakage. See, e.g., Wagner Compl. ¶¶ 2, 6-7, 32.
Plaintiffs in the actions alleging risk of explosion assert the same design defects.

-3-

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: SAMSUNG TOP-LOAD WASHING MACHINE
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2792

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
ALLEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03602
MADRID v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-00203
Eastern District of California
RAABE v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00946
District of Delaware
LANE v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-00371
Southern District of Florida
COOPER v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 0:17-61022
Northern District of Georgia
KELLAS v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-01232
Western District of Kentucky
JACOBS v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00272
Western District of Louisiana
SORIA v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00195
Western District of Michigan
HINKHOUSE v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00039
District of Minnesota
ANDERSON v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 0:17-01569

A-2
District of Nebraska
MULFORD v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:17-03017
District of New Jersey
MOORE, ET AL. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:16-04966
Eastern District of New York
FRAKER v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02353
Southern District of New York
MIKRUT v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-01525
Middle District of North Carolina
BRADLEY v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17-00171
Western District of Oklahoma
WELLS, ET AL. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 5:17-00046
MENZER v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-00409
SEWELL v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-00434
HANSEN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-00513
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
WAGNER v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-03623
Western District of Pennsylvania
TROYAN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-01873
District of South Carolina
SANDA, ET AL. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:17-00988

A-3
Southern District of Texas
ZAMORA v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:17-00154
Western District of Texas
PRONSTROLLER, ET AL. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 5:17-00163