Jacobs, Dianne v. Owens-Illinois Inc. et al

Filing 32

Certified Copy of Conditional Transfer Order. Case closed.. Signed by Kathryn H. Vratil, Acting Chairman on 6/5/13. (rep)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION {NO. VI)
Dorothy E. Knezevic v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., )
N.D. Illinois, C.A. No. 1:12-09983
)
)
Karen McVay v. Armstrong International Inc., et al.,
N.D. Ohio, C.A. No. 1:13-10001
)
)
Dianne Jacobs v. Owens-Illinois Inc., et al.,
W.D. Wisconsin, C.A. No. 3:12-00899
)

MDL No. 875

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:" Pursuant to Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in these three actions (Knezevic, McVay,
and Jacobs) separately move to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally transferring the actions to
MDL No. 875. The motions as to Knezevic and Jacobs are opposed/ but no defendant responded
in opposition to the McVay plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiffs in the Knezevic and Jacobs actions are represented by the firm of Cascino Vaughan
Law Offices, Ltd. (CVLO). In opposing transfer, these plaintiffs raise the same arguments that we
rejected at our March 2013 hearing session - namely, that very few new CVLO actions are being
transferred to the MDL, and that such transfer no longer serves the purposes of28 U.S.C. § 1407.
We disagree. As we recounted in our April1, 2013, order transferring three other CVLO actions to
the MDL (and thereby denying the motion to vacate filed by the plaintiffs therein), the transferee
judge, the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno is ably and efficiently winding down this MDL, and,
indeed, we have adopted the three Suggestions he has submitted thus far recommending that we cease
transferring new asbestos tag-alongs commenced in the vast majority of federal districts. 2

Judge John G. Heyburn II and Judge Marjorie 0. Rendell took no part in the decision of this
matter.
Responding defendants are CBS Corporation and General Electric Company (as to Knezevic);
and Owens-Illinois, Inc., and Weyerhauser Company (as to Jacobs), Weyerhauser Company (as to
Jacobs).
2

Pursuant to our orders adopting those Suggestions, we currently are transferring to the MDL
new asbestos actions commenced in just a handful ofjurisdictions: theN orthern District ofCalifornia,
the Northern District of Ohio, and districts in the Seventh Circuit (but onlythose Seventh Circuit
actions in which CVLO represents the plaintiffs therein). See In re: Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig., 830
F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2011); Order Adopting Second Suggestion to the Panel Concerning
Future Tag-Along Transfers, at 1 n.2 (J.P.M.L. Nov. 21, 2012) (doc. no. 9090); Order Adopting
Third Suggestion to the Panel Concerning Future Tag-Along Transfers (J.P.M.L. Apr. 19, 2013)
ATRUE COPY CERTIFIED TO FROM THE RECK)~
(doc. no. 931 0).

ft:, -5 -(}_

QATED:
TTH!IT:

----·--·--

'-::-:-:-+-~---,__--A-..--·-·--·OEPiffY CLEHI<., lH~!TtD S'f/\IES ,,,,;·nCi r;:;;c:;r
0

-2See Transfer Order, at 2 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 1, 2013) (doc. no. 9265). In our view, the judge is in the
best position to know when transfer of new actions from those few remaining jurisdictions is no
longer warranted.
Plaintiff in Me Vay opposes transfer, arguing that the Northern District of Ohio court should
be allowed to rule on her pending motion for remand to state court. As we have routinely held,
however, the pendency of jurisdictional objections generally is not a sufficient reason to delay
transfer, and plaintiff can present those objections to the transferee judge. 3 See, e.g., In re Prudential
Ins. Co. of America Sales Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
After considering all argument of counse~ we find that these three actions involve common
questions of fact with actions previously transferred to MDL No. 875, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Moreover, transfer is appropriate for the reasons set out in our original decision directing
centralization of all pending federal court actions not then in trial sharing factual questions of injury
or death allegedly caused by asbestos or asbestos containing products. See In re Asbestos Prods.
Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 771 F. Supp. 415 (J.P.M.L. 1991). These actions are all asbestos wrongful
death suits, and clearly fall within the MDL's ambit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these actions are
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Kathryn H. Vratil
Acting Chairman
W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Charles R. Breyer

Paul G. Barbadoro
Lewis A. Kaplan

Although the McVay plaintiff and the removing defendant (CBS Corporation) sought to
remand the action via stipulation, the Northern District of Ohio court rejected the stipulation,
suggesting that plaintiff seek the agreement of all defendants- including the more than twenty that
have filed answers- to dismissal ofthe action without prejudice. There is no indication that plaintiff
has done so, much less that any of those defendants would agree.