Opinion
DOCKET NO. 1373, C.A. No. 2:01-3701
April 18, 2002
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 one Northern District of Alabama action, one District of Arizona action, and two Eastern District of Louisiana actions 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, General Motors Corporation (GM) moves to vacate the conditional transfer order in the Eastern District of Texas action in which it is named as a defendant. Defendants Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tires LLC f/k/a Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Firestone) and Ford Motor Company (Ford) oppose the motions to vacate in the Northern District of Alabama action and the two Eastern District of Louisiana actions and favor inclusion of these actions in MDL-1373. Firestone also opposes the motion to vacate in the District of Arizona action (Gloria) in which it is the sole defendant.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these 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). We note that the motions to remand to state court pending in the two Eastern District of Louisiana actions and the Eastern District of Texas action 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 Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F. Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
GM argues against transfer of the Eastern District of Texas action that there is no commonality in questions of fact between this action and the actions already included in MDL-1373. GM notes that this action concerns different products than those usually at issue in MDL-1373 actions, namely, Ford Explorers and/or Firestone ATX, ATX II or Wilderness tires. GM further argues against transfer that i) the products at issue herein — a Firestone de Mexico FR 480 and a 1993 General Motors de Mexico (GMM) Suburban — were manufactured, assembled, sold and utilized in Mexico; ii) neither GM nor GMM is a defendant in any MDL-1373 action; and in) the products liability issues here concern the interaction of a 1993 GMM Suburban with a replacement Firestone de Mexico FR480. GM submits that this case is more properly litigated in Mexico, the forum where the accident occurred, where the plaintiffs reside, and where the products were manufactured. GM also points out that no party has opposed its motion to vacate. We are unpersuaded by these arguments. We find that this action, which involves claims for wrongful death in relation to a single-vehicle accident involving the rollover of a truck allegedly caused by tread separation on a Firestone tire, shares question of fact with the actions previously included in MDL-1373. We also note that there are at least twelve actions in MDL-1373 involving accidents that occurred in Mexico. Accordingly, we find that transfer is warranted. We point out to GM and any other parties who believe that the uniqueness of their particular situation or the type of claims renders continued inclusion of an 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.