Steven Rensel et al v. Fluidmaster, Inc.

Filing 17

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2575) Transferring 3 action(s) to Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. in the Northern District of Illinois.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 12/11/2014. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2575, CAC/8:14-cv-00648, ILN/1:14-cv-05696, NH/1:14-cv-00363, PAW/2:14-cv-00994 (dn)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: FLUIDMASTER, INC., WATER CONNECTOR
COMPONENTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2575

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Defendant Fluidmaster, Inc. (Fluidmaster) moves under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant’s motion
encompasses four actions1 pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule A. The cases in this
litigation involve alleged defects in Fluidmaster’s NO-BURST water supply lines, which are used
to connect a wall water supply to a household device, such as a toilet or dishwasher, that feature
acetal plastic coupling nuts and/or stainless braided steel supply lines.
All parties agree that some degree of centralization is appropriate. Plaintiffs in three actions
and a District of Arizona potential tag-along action support defendant’s motion in its entirety.
Plaintiffs in the Central District of California action support centralizing only coupling nut defect
claims in the Central District of California and, under Section 1407(a), separating and remanding
braided line defect claims.
After considering the argument of counsel, we find that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
All actions involve common factual questions about the allegedly defective nature of Fluidmaster’s
NO-BURST water connector product lines. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the lines fail in one
of two ways: (1) the braided stainless steel lines rupture due to the use of substandard materials, or
(2) the acetal coupling nut on the water connector fractures as a result of inferior materials and its
sharp edged design. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial
rulings (especially with respect to class certification); and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel and the judiciary.
The Central District of California plaintiffs request that we centralize only the coupling nut
claims and separate and remand any claims regarding the failure of the braided lines. We fail to see
any benefit to this approach. The cases undoubtedly overlap factually. While the later-filed actions
*

1

Judge Charles R. Breyer did not participate in the decision of this matter.

The Panel has been notified of an additional related action pending in the District of Arizona.
This action and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1
and 7.2.

- 2involve two mechanisms of failure, all actions involve the same product line—Fluidmaster NOBURST water connectors. All actions thus can be expected to share factual questions about the
development, design, marketing and warranties applicable to the NO-BURST product line.
Plaintiffs’ proposed solution—returning all braided line failure claims to their respective transferor
courts—adds inconvenience to defendant and some counsel by multiplying the courts in which they
must litigate, injects an unnecessary degree of uncertainty into this litigation, and increases the risk
of inconsistent pretrial rulings. Most importantly, plaintiffs in the cases pending outside of
California do not allege separate claims in their complaints, and Section 1407 “does not authorize
the Panel to transfer one issue raised by a claim ... while remanding another issue raised by the same
claim.” In re Air Crash Disaster at Duarte, Cal. on June 6, 1971, 346 F. Supp. 529, 530 (J.P.M.L.
1972); see also In re Resource Exploration, Inc., Sec. Litig., 483 F. Supp. 817, 822 (J.P.M.L. 1980)
(“[T]he Panel is not empowered to carve out issues for separate treatment under Section 1407.”).
The Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district for these proceedings.
It offers a geographically accessible forum for this nationwide litigation. Fluidmaster and plaintiffs
in four of the five total pending actions support centralization in this district. Moreover, the
broadest-based complaint, which includes allegations of braided line ruptures and coupling nut
fractures, is pending there.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
of the Northern District of Illinois are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action pending there and listed on Schedule A.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

IN RE: FLUIDMASTER, INC., WATER CONNECTOR
COMPONENTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2575

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
RENSEL, ET AL. v. FLUIDMASTER, INC., C.A. No. 8:14!00648
Northern District of Illinois
SULLIVAN, ET AL. v. FLUIDMASTER, INC., C.A. No. 1:14!05696
District of New Hampshire
HARDWICK v. FLUIDMASTER, INC., C.A. No. 1:14!00363
Western District of Pennsylvania
HUNGERMAN, ET AL. v. FLUIDMASTER, INC., C.A. No. 2:14!00994