Albert Heber v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (21 in CAC/8:16-cv-01525, 20 in CAC/8:16-cv-01679, 15 in MD/1:16-cv-03428, 29 in MDL No. 2755), ( 1 in MDL No. 2755) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 2/2/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2755, CAC/8:16-cv-01525, CAC/8:16-cv-01679, MD/1:16-cv-03428 (LH)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. SOY-BASED
WIRING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2755

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in the Central District of California Cochrane action moves
under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Central District of
California. Plaintiffs in all actions on the motion support the motion. Responding defendant Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota) opposes the motion or, alternatively, supports the Central District
of California as transferee district. This litigation consists of three actions pending in the Central
District of California and the District of Maryland.1
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that centralization is
not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. These actions share allegations that Toyota manufactured vehicles that
contain soy-based wiring insulation and related components that attract rodents to chew, gnaw, or
eat through the wiring, causing damage to the vehicles. All actions allege overlapping putative
nationwide claims and bring common legal claims. But all parties agree that these actions should
be litigated in the Central District of California, and in this instance, Section 1407 centralization is
not necessary to achieve that result. Toyota represented at oral argument that just two groups of
plaintiffs’ counsel have filed all pending actions and, if the Panel denies the Section 1407 motion
to centralize, plaintiffs with actions pending outside the Central District of California intend to
dismiss their actions and file a consolidated complaint in that district. We applaud such voluntary
efforts at coordinating the litigation made by counsel as we have made clear that “centralization
under Section 1407 should be the last solution after considered review of all other options.” In re:
Best Buy Co., Inc., Cal. Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L.
2011).

*

Certain Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this docket have
renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in the decision.
1

A fourth action included in the motion for centralization was pending in the Eastern
District of Louisiana, but plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed his action without prejudice. The Panel
also has been notified of five additional actions pending in five additional districts.

-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

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: TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. SOY-BASED
WIRING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2755

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
HEBER v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., C.A. No. 8:16-01525
COCHRANE v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:16-01679
District of Maryland
BENNETT, ET AL. v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16-03428