Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
In Re Ford Motor Co. Crown Victoria Police Interceptor
Products Liability Litigation
Renamed
as
In re Ford Motor Co. Panther Platform / Fuel Tank Design Products Liability Litigation
Ralph Jones v. Ford Motor Co.,
E.D. Arkansas,
C.A. No. 5:02-320;
Paul W. Abbott, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al.
N.D. Florida,
C.A. No. 3:02-345
Louisette M.F. Woodward v. Ford Motor Co.
E.D. Texas
C.A. No. 9:02-288
C.A. No. 5:02-320
C.A. No. 3:02-345
C.A.No. 9:02-288
Docket No. 1488
259 F. Supp. 2d 1366
2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6138
April 10, 2003, Filed
Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chairman, John F. Keenan, Bruce M. Selya, Julia Smith Gibbons, D. Lowell Jensen, J. Frederick Motz And Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judges of the Panel. Judge Keenan did not participate in the decision of this matter.
[*1367]
William Terrell Hodges
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, by Ford Motor Company (Ford) and an affiliated Ford dealer to include these three actions in MDL-1488 coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Alternatively, if the Panel deems inclusion in MDL-1488 to be inappropriate, moving defendants ask that the Panel centralize these three actions as a separate multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio before the MDL-1488 transferee judge. The Texas plaintiff opposes inclusion of her action in MDL-1488 proceedings on the ground that it does not share sufficient questions of fact with, and is significantly broader than, previously centralized MDL-1488 actions. The Texas plaintiff also opposes centralization of the actions now before the Panel as a separate docket.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these three actions involve common questions of fact with actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Northern District of Ohio, and that transfer of these actions to that district for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Plaintiffs in all MDL-1488 actions and the three actions now before the Panel allege that certain Ford vehicles are defectively designed because the fuel tank is located in the rear crush zone. The three actions now before the Panel are brought by individual vehicle owners (citizen actions), while most previously centralized MDL-1488 actions are brought by governmental entities which purchased primarily Ford Crown Victoria police interceptor vehicles (municipal actions). Even though the citizen actions may involve some unique questions of fact, common factual questions predominate. Both the citizen and municipal actions rely on similar allegations regarding Ford’s design decisions and knowledge of the purported defect; Ford is the common defendant in all actions; at least three of the previously centralized MDL-1488 municipal actions may involve the purchase of any Ford Crown Victoria vehicle -- not just police interceptor models; and purported [*1368] nationwide/statewide classes in these actions appear to overlap. Accordingly, the scope of discovery in the municipal and citizen actions will overlap. We also note that a citizen action originally filed in the Northern District of Ohio is already proceeding in a coordinated fashion with the MDL-1488 municipal actions. Inclusion of the present citizen actions in MDL-1488 pretrial proceedings will have the salutary effect of placing all the related actions before a single judge who can formulate a pretrial program that: 1) allows pretrial proceedings with respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with pretrial proceedings on common issues, In re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, 464 F. Supp. 969, 974 (J.P.M.L. 1979); and 2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties. We are confident in Judge Nugent’s ability to streamline pretrial proceedings in all actions, while concomitantly directing the appropriate resolution of all claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these three actions are transferred to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Donald C. Nugent for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MDL-1488 is renamed as follows: MDL-1488--In re Ford Motor Co. Panther Platform/ Fuel Tank Design Products Liability Litigation.
FOR THE PANEL:
Wm. Terrell Hodges
Chairman
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
In Re Ford Motor Co. Crown Victoria
Police Interceptor Products Liability Litigation
Docket No.
1488
229 F. Supp. 2d 1377
2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20250
October 18, 2002, Decided
October 18, 2002, Filed
Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chairman, John F. Keenan, Morey L. Sear, Bruce M. Selya, Julia Smith Gibbons, D. Lowell Jensen And J. Frederick Motz, Judges of the Panel. Judges Keenan and Sear took no part in the decision of this matter.
[*1377]
William Terrell Hodges
This litigation presently consists of six actions: two actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and one action each in the Western District of Arkansas, the District of New Jersey, the Northern District of Ohio, and the Southern District of Texas. n1 Before the Panel is a motion, as amended, by defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) and its dealers n2 to centralize [*1378] these actions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in any federal district in which a constituent action is pending. The Ohio plaintiff supports the motion and suggests centralization in the Northern District of Ohio. The New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas plaintiffs oppose centralization and/ or ask the Panel to defer its Section 1407 ruling in order to permit the transferor courts to rule on pending motions to remand these actions to their respective state courts. If the Panel deems centralization appropriate, these parties suggest selection of the district in which their respective action is pending as transferee district.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Common factual questions arise because all actions focus on allegations that the vertical-behind-axle fuel tanks in 1992-2002 Ford Crown Victoria police interceptor vehicles result in an increased risk of injury or death from fuel fed fires, if the vehicles are involved in high-speed rear-end collisions. In addition, all actions are brought by counties, municipalities and other political divisions within each state on behalf of nationwide, statewide or other purported classes which seek damages or other relief based upon economic injury arising from this alleged defect. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus necessary in order to avoid duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent or repetitive pretrial rulings (such as those regarding class certification), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. We note that any pending motions to remand these actions to their respective state courts can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
Given the geographic dispersal of constituent actions and potential tag-along actions, no district stands out as the focal point for this docket. In selecting the Northern District of Ohio as the transferee district in this docket, we note that i) an action is pending there, and ii) this district has the capacity to handle this litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Ohio are transferred to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Donald C. Nugent for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.
FOR THE PANEL:
Wm. Terrell Hodges
Chairman
October 18, 2002
Notes:
1 The Ohio action now before the Panel was not included in the Section 1407 motion in this docket, but is now included in this litigation, because all parties to this action have stated in writing their respective positions and presented oral argument at the Panel’s September 26, 2002, hearing session.
The Panel has been notified that fifteen potentially related actions have been filed as follows: three actions in the Northern District of Ohio; two actions each in the Northern District of Florida, the Eastern District of Louisiana, and the Southern District of Mississippi; and one action each in the Northern District of Alabama, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Western District of Arkansas, the Southern District of Illinois, the Western District of Louisiana, and the Western District of Tennessee. These actions and any other related actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001).
2 Warnock Ford, Inc.; Charlie Thomas’ Courtesy Ford, Inc., f/ k/ a Courtesy Ford Motors, Inc., d/ b/ a Padre Ford-Mazda; Tradewinds Ford Sales, Inc., f/ k/ a Crosstown Ford Sales; Bob Lacy Ford, Inc.; and Central Ford Center, Inc., d/ b/ a Landers Ford.
To: Miscellaneous Recipients Interested Publishers
Re: MDL-1488 -- In re Ford Motor Co. Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Products Liability Litigation
(See Attached Schedule A of Order)
For your information, I am enclosing a copy of an order filed today by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation involving the above-captioned matter. The order is “Released for Publication” in bound reporters such as Federal Supplement, as well as on web sites such as Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw.
MDL-1488 -- In re Ford Motor Co. Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Products Liability Litigation
Western District of Arkansas
City of Malvern, Arkansas, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:02-6148
District of New Jersey
City of New Brunswick, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:02-3275
Northern District of Ohio
The City of Cleveland v. Ford Motor Co., C.A. No. 1:02-1692 [*1379]
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Montgomery Township, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., C.A. No. 2:02-4710
Montgomery Township, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., C.A. No. 2:02-5815
Southern District of Texas
Nueces County, Texas v. Ford Motor Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:02-297