Opinion
Case No. 00-1289
September 14, 2000.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending a Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [7-1]. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiff, Esther Siewert-Sitzmore ("Sitzmore") filed a four-count Complaint in the Circuit Court of Peoria County asserting claims for breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and in strict liability in connection with tires sold and manufactured by Defendant, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. ("Firestone"). The underlying factual basis for this litigation rests largely on Firestone's highly publicized nationwide recall of potentially defective tires.
Sitzmore also filed an Emergency Motion for Permanent Injunction in which she asked the state court to order Firestone to deposit twenty-five million dollars in an escrow account which would be available to class members for replacement of their alleged defective tires. The motion criticizes Firestone's current recall plan as limited and disadvantageous to individuals in Illinois. In addition, Sitzmore claims that there is potential for further injuries and loss of life if the current recall plan is maintained.
On August 31, 2000, Firestone gave Notice of Removal from State Court claiming this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 1446. On September 6, 2000, Sitzmore filed an Emergency Motion for Summary Order of Remand challenging the Court's jurisdiction and asking that the action be returned to state court. On September 7, 2000, Firestone filed a Motion to Stay asking this Court to stay this proceeding pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML").
In addition to this action, Firestone is currently involved in, at last count, 47 lawsuits pertaining to the recall plan and alleged defective tires. Both counsel for the defendants and plaintiffs in some of these proceedings have filed Motions to Transfer with the JPML to have a coordinated proceedings before a single judge.
This Court, in exercising it's discretion, defers ruling on the Sitzmore's Motion for Remand and instead focuses it's attention on the Motion to Stay. This Court recognizes that it is appropriate in most cases to address the jurisdictional question before ruling on other motions. However, it has been represented by Firestone's counsel that the jurisdictional issue that is the subject of Sitzmore's motion has been raised in other similar pending litigations against Firestone. The JPML has motions before it to consider consolidating the jurisdictional issue and other related issues from the various cases. Where such matters are before the JPML, district courts have the discretion to stay an action pending a review by the JPML. See, Falgoust, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2000 WL 462919 (E.D.La). Therefore, it is within this Court's discretion to review Firestone's Motion to Stay before Sitzmore's Motion to Remand.
On September 11, 2000, this Court heard argument on the Firestone's Motion to Stay. This Court ordered that the proceedings be temporarily stayed and that Sitzmore and Firestone file a motion with the JPML seeking expedited review of pending Motions to Transfer.
This Order follows.
Discussion
In deciding whether to stay a proceeding, the Court must balance: 1) the hardship and inequity on the moving party if the action is not stayed; 2) the prejudice of the non-moving party if a stay is granted; and 3) judicial economy.
Firestone faces a number of compelling hardships and inequity if this action is not stayed. First, Firestone will be required to simultaneously defend an already large and apparently still growing number of lawsuits throughout the country concerning the safety of certain tires. Firestone has submitted a list of 47 current actions, including this one, that it wishes the JPML to consider for consolidation. Most of those actions apparently encompass the same underlying claims arising out of the manufacture of certain tires by Firestone and the recall Firestone has instituted regarding those tires. Second, Firestone could become subject to a number of inconsistent orders addressing the issue of the recall. If this Court, or on Remand the state court, enters the requested injunction, and other courts enter competing injunctions addressing the same subject matter, Firestone may not be able to act in accordance with all orders. Although the current recall plan may be arguably inadequate, this Court defers undertaking the task of addressing that issue until the JPML has had a reasonable opportunity to consider consolidation or coordination.
The second factor this Court must balance is the prejudice to Sitzmore and the putative class if the stay is granted. Sitzmore asserts that she has a pending motion for injunctive relief that is designed to save lives. According to Sitzmore, there are currently a number of Illinois residents who are driving on unsafe tires that are subject to Firestone's recall. If the assertions made by Sitzmore are true, there is a real potential for injuries or death to occur as a result of driving on the recalled tires. Of course, at this time Firestone denies that the tires are unsafe. The fact that there are consumers presently in an allegedly dangerous situation weighs heavily on this Court's decision. However, this Court finds that a stay pending a review by the JPML will assist in alleviating this potential harm. The reasons for this can be best illustrated by examining the factor of judicial economy.
Congress's purpose for creating the JPML and allowing it to coordinate or consolidate such proceedings was to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive determination to multidistrict litigation. Matter of New York City Mun. Securities Litigation, 572 F.2d 49, 51 (2nd Cir. 1978); Aikins v. Microsoft Corporation, 2000 WL 310391, *1 (E.D.La.); Falgoust, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2000 WL 462919, *1 (E.D.La.). A coordinated or consolidated proceeding is appropriate where there are civil action pending in a number of districts that involve one or more common questions of fact. Id. This coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceeding is an effective way of avoiding potentially inconsistent rulings, which may harm the parties. In re Fourth Class Postage Regulation, 298 F. Supp. 1326, 1327 (J.P.M.L. 1969).
This Court finds from the representations of counsel at oral argument that the issues of federal jurisdiction and inadequacy of the recall have been raised in some and are likely to be raised in other pending cases. Based on this Court's experience, this case appears to be appropriate for the JPML review and consolidation or coordination.
Sitzmore seeks injunctive relief that will prevent potential injuries or death. This Court finds that the most effective means of providing Sitzmore with any relief which she deserves is to have a final decision, free from any inconsistent rulings.
Even if Sitzmore were to obtain a favorable ruling in this court or on remand in state court, the relief she seeks could well be blocked by inconsistent orders on the same subject matters entered by other courts in this state or elsewhere. The relief Sitzmore seeks can best be effectuated by the coordination or consolidation process that is within the power of the JPML to order.
However, at a certain point in the future, balance of the aforementioned factors may weigh more heavily in favor of allowing Sitzmore to proceed in this court. Most notably, if events occur that indicate the JPML will not be able to take up the issue of jurisdiction with reasonable promptness, this Court may be reconsider whether to withdraw the stay. Therefore, this Court, in the exercise of it's discretion, retains the right to lift this stay and proceed with any pending motions.
This Court understands from representations made by Firestone's counsel that previously filed motions seeking expedited consideration to consolidate the pending matters were denied. This Court urges the JPML to provide expedited review (or review at the earliest possible time) because of the public's preoccupation with the safety issues related to these tires. As a result, many citizens have a high level of fear and concern regarding the safety to drive on these tires, whether that concern is warranted or not. This Order gives to the JPML the opportunity to demonstrate to these litigants that the judicial procedures that are in place to deal with such multiple lawsuits are both speedy and fair to all parties.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending a Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [7-1] is GRANTED. This Court shall temporarily stay this action until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has had a reasonable opportunity to review pending motions that relate to this matter. It is further ordered that both parties shall file a motion with the JPML on or before September 19, 2000, asking the JPML to expedite consideration on the pending Motions to Coordinate the federal cases against Firestone.