Rice v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

Filing 159

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry) - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for retransfer to the USDC Eastern District of California or in the alternative to consolidate is granted in part and denied in part; mot ion granted to the extent that it requests the consolidation of this action with Rice/Kukich vs. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. No. 4:15-CV-539 and Mauro vs. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. et al No. 4:18-CV-539; Plaintiffs in the now consolidated act ion are directed to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days; motions to dismiss in all three actions will be denied as moot; Clerk directed to docket Plaintiffs' ex parte motion to allow alternative service (doc 133 in 4:17-CV-2028) and Plaintiff's motion to retransfer (doc 75 in 4:18-CV-539). See order for further/complete details). Signed by Matthew W. Brann on 8/20/18. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERIKA MENDOZA and JAMES HUNT,
Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

No. 4:17-CV-02028
(Judge Brann)

Plaintiffs.
v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,
INC.; SHARP MANUFACTURING
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a division of
SHARP ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION; SHARP
APPLIANCES THAILAND LIMITED;
MIDEA AMERICA CORP.; MIDEA
MICROWAVE AND ELECTRICAL
APPLIANCES MANUFACTURING
CO., LTD; LOWE’S HOME CENTERS,
LLC; MODESTO DIRECT
APPLIANCE, INC.; and ABC CORP. 110;
Defendants.

ELAINE RICE and ALEX KUKICH,
Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

No. 4:15-CV-00371
(Judge Brann)

Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,
INC.,
Defendant.

- 1 -

No. 4:18-CV-00539

DEAN MAURO, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

(Judge Brann)
Plaintiffs.
v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,
INC.; MIDEA AMERICA CORP.;
MIDEA MICROWAVE AND
ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD; and
LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC.
Defendants.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of August 2018, in accordance with the
Memorandum Opinion of this same date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Retransfer to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California, or in the Alternative, to Consolidate
this Action with the Rice/Kukich Consolidated Action (ECF No. 106) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a.

This Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it requests the
consolidation of this action with Rice/Kukich v. Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00371, and Mauro v. Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., et al., No. 4:18-cv-00539. The Clerk is directed to
consolidate these cases within the Rice/Kukich action.

- 2 -

b.

Plaintiffs in the now consolidated action are directed to file an
Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order.

c.

Contemporaneous with the filing of a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, the parties shall file a proposed case management
order for this Court’s review and potential adoption which
contains deadlines allowing for the additional needed discovery
and other case management deadlines.

2.

Because the filing of this Consolidated Amended Complaint would
necessarily supersede the complaints of the now separate actions,
motions to dismiss in all three actions will be DENIED AS MOOT
without prejudice to the parties refiling in response to the consolidated
complaint. Those Motions are as follows:
a.

In the Mendoza Action (No. 4:17-CV-02028), Defendants
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC,
Modesto Direct Appliance, Sharp Manufacturing Company of
America, and Midea America Corp.’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF
Nos. 65, 76, 90, 94) are DENIED without prejudice to refiling
following the assertion of a Consolidated Amended Complaint.

b.

In the Rice/Kukich Action (No. 4:15-cv-00371), Defendant
Electrolux’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 147) is DENIED

- 3 -

without prejudice to refiling following the assertion of a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.
c.

In the Mauro Action (No. 4:18-cv-00539), Defendants Electrolux
Home Products, Inc., Lowe’s Home Centers LLC, and Midea
America Corp.’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 55 & 61) are
DENIED without prejudice to refiling following the assertion of a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

3.

The Clerk is directed to docket the following motions within the lead
case, or the Rice/Kukich Action (No. 4:15-cv-00371):
a.

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Allow Alternative Service on
Defendants Midea Microwave and Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd.
and Sharp Appliances Thailand Limited, docketed at ECF No. 133
in the Mendoza Action (No. 4:17-CV-02028); and

b.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Retransfer to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York, docketed at ECF
No. 75 in Mauro Action (No. 4:18-cv-00539).
BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

- 4 -