Gonzalez-Servin v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
Filing
65
ORDER AND OPINION denying 58 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 64 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on 11/21/13. (SKK)
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
NORTHERN DIVISION
NOV 2 , 2013
~~
******************************************************************************
*
MONICA DEL CARMEN GONZALES
*
SERVIN, Individually and as Representative of *
the Estate of HANS GUERRERO ALTMANN, *
MARIA FERNANDA GUERRO GONZALES, *
a minor, and HANS GUERRERO
*
GONZALES, a minor,
*
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FIRESTONE
POLYMERS, LLC, and BRIDGESTONE
NORTH AMERICAN TIRE,
Defendants.
CIV 05-1023
ORDER AND OPINION
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
******************************************************************************
Plaintiffs are Mexican nationals who brought this products liability action against
defendants contending that the death of their decedent was caused by defective tires
manufactured by BridgestonelFirestone. The tires were on an Explorer manufactured by
Ford. The injury occurred in the Mexican state of Guanajuato and the decedent was a
Mexican citizen. On June 22, 2005, the original complaint was filed in the District of
South Dakota. Defendants moved to dismiss this action on the basis offorum non
conveniens. This Court denied the motion without prejudice, and the case was transferred
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, joining other
similarly situated cases in the MDL Proceeding, No. 1373, In re: Bridgestone Firestone,
Inc. Tire Products Liability, Master file No. IP 00-9374.
Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multi
District Litigation, the "transferee district court" is the federal district court to which tag
along actions are transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for inclusion in an MDL.
i
t
,
i
,
MDL Rule 1. 1(i). According to MDL Rule 1O.I(a), if the case is disposed of by the
transferee (MDL) court, the case remains with the transferee court and is not remanded to
the transferor court.
Termination. Where the transferee district court terminates an
action by valid order, including but not limited to summary
judgment, judgment of dismissal and judgment upon
stipulation, the transferee district court clerk shall transmit a
copy of that order to the Clerk of the Panel. The terminated
action shall not be remanded to the transferor court and the
transferee court shall retain the original files and records
unless the transferee judge or the Panel directs otherwise.
MDL Rule 10.l(a).
Plaintiffs in this motion before the Court seek relief under Rule 60(b) or (e) or
both. However, the plaintiffs have filed this motion in the wrong court. On August 3,
2007, a transfer order was filed moving the action from this Court to Judge Barker in the
7th Circuit, Southern District of Indiana. Citing common questions of fact with the
actions previously transferred to the MDL Panel in the Southern District of Indiana, this
action was transferred as a tag-along action to promote just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. "When the transfer becomes effective, the jurisdiction of the transferor court
ceases and the transferee court has exclusive jurisdiction." Allen v. Bayer Corp In re:
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig.), 460 F3d. 1217, 1230 (9th Cir. Wash.
2006) citing Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.131 (Internal quotations omitted). "This
includes authority to decide all pretrial motions, including dispositive motions such as
motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions for involuntary dismissal
under Rule 41 (b), motions to strike an affirmative defense, and motions for judgment
pursuant to a settlement." See Allen at 1231. Pursuant to 28 V.S.c. § 1407(c), a transfer
is effective when the order of transfer is "filed in the office of the clerk of the district
court of the transferee district." Therefore, since August 3,2007, this Court no longer has
had jurisdiction in the case. Manual for Complex Litigation § 9.1 explains that "the
i
f
I
I
,
t
!
2
f
!
f·
)
divestment of [the transferor's] jurisdiction is complete" upon the transfer of the
litigation. If the plaintiffs wish to seek a reconsideration ofjudgement, the correct court
to file a motion to reinstate would therefore be the Southern District of Indiana.
ORDER
Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiffs' motions, Docs. 58 and 64, second motion to reopen case, is denied.
~J~~
Dated thi~_tday of November, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
~&~
CARLES B. KORNMANN
United States District Judge
ATTEST:
JOSEPH HAAS, CLERK
~JWr
D PUTV'
(SEAL)
r
I
3
i
I
!
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?