Opinion
C.A. No. 2:01-3002, Docket No. 1373.
April 8, 2002
BEFORE WM. TERRELL HODGES, CHAIRMAN, JOHN F. KEENAN, MOREY L. SEAR, BRUCE M. SELYA, JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSENfn_ AND J. FREDERICK MOTZ, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
Judges Keenan and Jensen took no part in the decision of this matter.
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel are motions brought, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), by plaintiffs in two Southern District of Florida actions, the Eastern District of Louisiana action, and the Southern District of Mississippi action requesting the Panel to vacate its orders conditionally transferring the actions to the Southern District of Indiana for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket. Similarly, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) moves to vacate the conditional transfer order in a third Southern District of Florida action in which it is named as a defendant. Ford Motor Company (Ford) opposes the motions to vacate and favors inclusion of these actions in MDL-1373, as does Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Firestone) in the two Southern District of Florida actions in which it is still an active defendant.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the five actions involve common questions of fact with the actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Southern District of Indiana, and that transfer of these five actions to the Southern District of Indiana for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in that district will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Like the previously centralized actions, the five present actions involve allegations that Firestone and/or Ford are responsible for harm or risk of harm caused by defective tires, defective vehicles, or both, including economic or property damage and personal injury or wrongful death. Relevant discovery, including expert testimony, will overlap substantially in each action. The Panel further finds that transfer of these five actions is appropriate for reasons expressed by the Panel in its original order directing centralization in this docket. See In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., ATX, ATX II and Wilderness Tires Products Liability Litigation, MDL-1373, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15926 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 24, 2000).
Plaintiffs in the Southern District of Mississippi action argue against transfer of their action that pretrial proceedings are complete and the federal courts lack jurisdiction. We note, however, that there is disagreement among the parties concerning whether pretrial proceedings have been completed in this action. We point out that such a matter is particularly appropriate for resolution by the transferee court. We also note that the motions for remand to state court pending in this action and several of the other actions can be presented to and decided by the transferee court. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir. 1990); In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 368 F. Supp. 812, 813 (J.P.M.L. 1973).
State Farm argues against transfer of one of the Southern District of Florida actions that the claim against it, for spoliation of evidence, does not arise from the same operative facts or legal issues as the products liability claims against Firestone and Ford. State Farm maintains that the witnesses and documentary evidence on the spoliation claim will be substantially different from those related to the other claims and that most of the witnesses and evidence pertinent to the spoliation claim will be centered in Florida. State Farm contends that transfer of the spoliation claim to MDL-1373 would prejudice State Farm by requiring it to address pretrial issues in an inconvenient forum established to address different factual and legal issues. State Farm also suggests that separation and remand of this particular claim will not prejudice the plaintiffs. We are unpersuaded by these arguments. We find that the transferee judge is in a better position to determine whether the plaintiffs' spoliation claim has any factual overlap with the other claims in this action or the previously transferred MDL-1373 actions, particularly since State Farm is a defendant in several actions previously transferred to MDL-1373. We also point out to State Farm and any other parties who believe that the uniqueness of their particular situation or the type of their claims renders continued inclusion of their action in MDL-1373 unnecessary or inadvisable that whenever the transferee judge deems remand of any claims or actions appropriate, procedures are available whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of delay. See Rule 7.6, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. at 436-38.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these five actions are transferred to the Southern District of Indiana and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Sarah Evans Barker for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.