UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2047
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER
The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), is appropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s). IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7—day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the Eastern District of Louisiana with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded.
Inasmuch as no objection is FOR THE PANEL: iited time, the LA AC CLERK’S OFFICE BEAL PANEER John W. Nichols Clerk of the Panel
IN RE: CHINESE−MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2047 SCHEDULE FOR CRO
TRANSFEREE TRANSFEROR DISTDIV. C.A.NO. DISTDIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION Bennett et al v. Gebrueder Knauf LAE 2 14−02722 ALN 5 14−02204 Verwaltungsgesellschaft KG et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL * PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION * * CIVIL ACTION * * MDL NO. 2047 * * SECTION L (5) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: * Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v. Gebr. * KnaufVerwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, et al., No. 14-2722 *
SUGGESTION OF REMAND, OPINION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and rebuilding efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina led to a shortage of construction materials, including drywall. As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the United States and used to construct and refurbish homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Sometime after the installation of the Chinese drywall, homeowners began to complain of emissions of foul-smelling gas, the corrosion and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. See In re Chinese- Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 894 F. Supp. 2d 819, 829–30 (E.D. La. 2012), aff’d, 742 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2014). Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various physical afflictions believed to be caused by the Chinese drywall. These homeowners then began to file suit in various state and federal courts against homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors, and manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall. As a result, many homebuilders also filed suit seeking to recoup their damages. Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases, this litigation was designated as a multidistrict litigation. Pursuant to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2009, all federal cases involving Chinese drywall were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in MDL 09-2047 before this Court. The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups of defendants: (1)
the Knauf Entities and (2) the Taishan Entities. The litigation has focused upon these two entities and their downstream associates and has proceeded on strikingly different tracks for the claims against each group. Because the Bennett action only involves the Knauf Entities, the Court does not address the Taishan portion of the litigation in this Order. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Knauf Defendants
The Knauf Entities are German-based, international manufacturers of building products, including drywall, whose Chinese subsidiary, Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (“KPT”), advertised and sold its Chinese drywall in the United States. The Knauf Entities are named defendants in numerous cases consolidated with the MDL litigation and litigation in state courts. The Knauf Entities first entered their appearance in the MDL litigation on July 2, 2009. Thereafter, the Court presided over a bellwether trial in Hernandez v. Knauf Gips KG, Case No. 09-6050, involving a homeowner’s claims against KPT for defective drywall. The Court found in favor of the plaintiff family in Hernandez, issued a detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and entered a Judgment in the amount of $164,049.64, including remediation damages in the amount of $136,940.46—which represented a remediation cost of $81.13 per square foot based on the footprint square footage of the house. Subsequently, the Knauf Entities agreed to institute a pilot remediation program utilizing the remediation protocol formulated by the Court from the evidence in Hernandez. The Knauf pilot remediation program is now completed and more than 2,200 homes containing KPT Chinese drywall have been remediated using the same general protocol. At the Court’s urging, the parties began working together to monetize this program and make it available to a broader class of plaintiffs.
On December 20, 2011, the Knauf Entities and the PSC entered into a global, class Settlement Agreement (“Knauf Settlement Agreement”), which was designed to resolve all Knauf- related, Chinese drywall claims. In addition to the Knauf Settlement Agreement and after a jury trial in a bellwether case, numerous defendants in the chain-of-commerce with the Knauf Entities entered into class settlement agreements, the effect of which settles almost all of the Knauf Entities’ chain-of-commerce litigation. The total amount of the Knauf Settlement is approximately $1.1 billion. Thereafter, additional claims were filed against Knauf and others, as in the instant case. III. SUGGESTION OF REMAND
The instant suggestion of remand involves claims asserted by Plaintiffs who did not participate in the Knauf settlement. After managing this MDL for ten years, the Court concludes that the purpose behind consolidating these related actions in this Court have now been served. The Court has addressed numerous discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and other pretrial issues involving facts and legal questions common to the various cases in this MDL proceeding. No further pretrial motions raising common questions are pending in these cases, and remand to the transferor court appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness to the parties. This suggestion of remand relates to Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v. Gebr. KnaufVerwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, et al., No. 14-2722 (“Bennett Complaint”). On November 13, 2014, Elizabeth Bennett filed suit in the Northern District of Alabama on her own behalf and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated homeowners who allegedly suffered damages due to defective Chinese drywall in their homes.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2047
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER
The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), is appropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s). IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7—day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the Eastern District of Louisiana with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded.
Inasmuch as no objection is FOR THE PANEL: iited time, the LA AC CLERK’S OFFICE BEAL PANEER John W. Nichols Clerk of the Panel
IN RE: CHINESE−MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2047 SCHEDULE FOR CRO
TRANSFEREE TRANSFEROR DISTDIV. C.A.NO. DISTDIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION Bennett et al v. Gebrueder Knauf LAE 2 14−02722 ALN 5 14−02204 Verwaltungsgesellschaft KG et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL * PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION * * CIVIL ACTION * * MDL NO. 2047 * * SECTION L (5) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: * Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v. Gebr. * KnaufVerwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, et al., No. 14-2722 *
SUGGESTION OF REMAND, OPINION AND ORDER I. BACKGROUND From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and rebuilding efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina led to a shortage of construction materials, including drywall. As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the United States and used to construct and refurbish homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Sometime after the installation of the Chinese drywall, homeowners began to complain of emissions of foul-smelling gas, the corrosion and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. See In re Chinese- Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 894 F. Supp. 2d 819, 829–30 (E.D. La. 2012), aff’d, 742 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2014). Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various physical afflictions believed to be caused by the Chinese drywall. These homeowners then began to file suit in various state and federal courts against homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors, and manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall. As a result, many homebuilders also filed suit seeking to recoup their damages. Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases, this litigation was designated as a multidistrict litigation. Pursuant to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2009, all federal cases involving Chinese drywall were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in MDL 09-2047 before this Court. The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups of defendants: (1)
the Knauf Entities and (2) the Taishan Entities. The litigation has focused upon these two entities and their downstream associates and has proceeded on strikingly different tracks for the claims against each group. Because the Bennett action only involves the Knauf Entities, the Court does not address the Taishan portion of the litigation in this Order. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Knauf Defendants
The Knauf Entities are German-based, international manufacturers of building products, including drywall, whose Chinese subsidiary, Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (“KPT”), advertised and sold its Chinese drywall in the United States. The Knauf Entities are named defendants in numerous cases consolidated with the MDL litigation and litigation in state courts. The Knauf Entities first entered their appearance in the MDL litigation on July 2, 2009. Thereafter, the Court presided over a bellwether trial in Hernandez v. Knauf Gips KG, Case No. 09-6050, involving a homeowner’s claims against KPT for defective drywall. The Court found in favor of the plaintiff family in Hernandez, issued a detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and entered a Judgment in the amount of $164,049.64, including remediation damages in the amount of $136,940.46—which represented a remediation cost of $81.13 per square foot based on the footprint square footage of the house. Subsequently, the Knauf Entities agreed to institute a pilot remediation program utilizing the remediation protocol formulated by the Court from the evidence in Hernandez. The Knauf pilot remediation program is now completed and more than 2,200 homes containing KPT Chinese drywall have been remediated using the same general protocol. At the Court’s urging, the parties began working together to monetize this program and make it available to a broader class of plaintiffs.
On December 20, 2011, the Knauf Entities and the PSC entered into a global, class Settlement Agreement (“Knauf Settlement Agreement”), which was designed to resolve all Knauf- related, Chinese drywall claims. In addition to the Knauf Settlement Agreement and after a jury trial in a bellwether case, numerous defendants in the chain-of-commerce with the Knauf Entities entered into class settlement agreements, the effect of which settles almost all of the Knauf Entities’ chain-of-commerce litigation. The total amount of the Knauf Settlement is approximately $1.1 billion. Thereafter, additional claims were filed against Knauf and others, as in the instant case. III. SUGGESTION OF REMAND
The instant suggestion of remand involves claims asserted by Plaintiffs who did not participate in the Knauf settlement. After managing this MDL for ten years, the Court concludes that the purpose behind consolidating these related actions in this Court have now been served. The Court has addressed numerous discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and other pretrial issues involving facts and legal questions common to the various cases in this MDL proceeding. No further pretrial motions raising common questions are pending in these cases, and remand to the transferor court appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness to the parties. This suggestion of remand relates to Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v. Gebr. KnaufVerwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, et al., No. 14-2722 (“Bennett Complaint”). On November 13, 2014, Elizabeth Bennett filed suit in the Northern District of Alabama on her own behalf and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated homeowners who allegedly suffered damages due to defective Chinese drywall in their homes. The Plaintiffs raised claims against the Knauf Entities for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, redhibition, violations of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, private nuisance,
negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer protection laws, and equitable and injunctive relief and medical monitoring with respect to the manufacture of allegedly defective Chinese drywall. In January 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated it with the In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Liability Litigation, MDL 09-2047, currently pending before this Court. Upon learning that twenty-three Bennett plaintiffs planned to appeal the Court’s Orders and Reasons granting summary judgment against them, the Court severed these cases so as not to delay the instant suggestion of remand. R. Doc. 22967. Given the extensive motions practice that has occurred in this MDL, the Court finds it appropriate to transfer the remaining Bennett cases to the transferor court. See Attachment A. This
Court recognizes that parties may still need to conduct some discovery before trial. Nevertheless, this discovery is case-specific, so it should be supervised by the transferor court. This Court has worked diligently for the past ten years, and transferor court and parties are now equipped with abundant resources to steer these cases to a fair and just conclusion. In particular, this Court has denied class certification of the purported Bennett class action. R. Docs. 22528. At this point in the litigation, centralizing these cases has minimal benefit to parties; local courts are well-suited to evaluate the losses incurred by the Plaintiffs. V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing reasons and pursuant to Rule 10.1(b)(i) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Court SUGGESTED that the remaining Bennett cases listed in Attachment A be remanded to the transferor court for further proceedings. The Court submitted this suggestion to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation by means of the attached letter. See Attachment B. IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of December 2020.
ELDON E. FALLON United States District Judge
Robert & Stephanie Amuso 9461 Ambrose Lane Northern District of Alabama Kimberly, AL 35091 Carl & Lynn Russell 5427 Creekside Lane Northern District of Alabama Hoover, AL 35244 Elizabeth Bennett 102 Morningwalk Lane Northern District of Alabama Huntsville, AL 35824 Jennifer & William Brady 2089 Knollwood Place Northern District of Alabama Birmingham, AL 35242 Hoan Bao & Hanh Bich Thi Tran 1008 Washington Court Northern District of Alabama Moody, AL 35004 Damian & Leslie Marie Cason 124 Arbor Hill Lane Northern District of Alabama Huntsville, AL 35824 David & Dahnelle Reynolds 101 Spotted Fawn Road Northern District of Alabama Madison, AL 35758 Ike & Nancy Ijemere 7012 Eagle Point Trail Northern District of Alabama Birmingham, AL 35242 Jason Scott 149 Silo Hill Road Northern District of Alabama Madison, AL 35758 Katie & Jason Hallmark 775 Ridgefield Way Northern District of Alabama Odenville, AL 35120 Booker & Terri Lee 3258 Clubhouse Road Southern District of Alabama Mobile, AL 36605 Michael & Becky Chedester 10955 West Brighton Drive Southern District of Alabama Chunchula, AL 36521 Olivia & Les Porciuncula 339 SW Wilton Avenue Middle District of Florida Palm Bay, FL 32908 James Blevins 2636 SE 19th Place Middle District of Florida Cape Coral, FL 33904 John & Rebecca Judge 2618 50th Street West Middle District of Florida Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 Cesar & Ines Jaramillo 5301 Nicklaus Drive Middle District of Florida Winter Haven, FL 33884 Abigail Cohen 20305 Chestnut Grove Drive Middle District of Florida Tampa, FL 33647 Anjali Van Drie 4101 NW 22nd Street Middle District of Florida Cape Coral, FL 33993 Edward Laremore 7018 Pilgrim Court Middle District of Florida Labelle, FL 33935 CDO Investments, LLC 25409 Durango Court Middle District of Florida Punta Gorda, FL 33955 MCF Enterprises, Inc. 8554 Pegasis Drive Middle District of Florida Lehigh Avenue, FL 33971 Christopher & Julianne Kopach 20318 Chestnut Grove Drive Middle District of Florida Tampa, FL 33647 Marie Y. Lorquet 284 James Circle Middle District of Florida Lake Alfred, FL 33850 Vince & Rose Russo 9800 Quinta Artesa Way Middle District of Florida Ft. Myers, FL 33908 Glenn & Yvette Price 1751 Bobcat Trail Middle District of Florida North Port, FL 34288 Fred Pool & Raquel DeFigueiredo 14531 Coronado Drive Middle District of Florida Spring Hill, FL 34609 Matthew Tabacchi (Allstate Servicing, Inc.) 13430 NE 30th Court Middle District of Florida Anthony, FL 32617 Sharon & Albert Timmons 1820 NE 7th Avenue Middle District of Florida Winter Haven, FL 33881 Byron & Fern Robbins 421 Chelsea Place Avenue Middle District of Florida Ormond Beach, FL 32174 Ed Ball & Margot Gravel 2464 Silver Palm Road Middle District of Florida North Port, FL 34288 Mark & Sheri Rigopoulos 3411 24th Avenue NE Middle District of Florida Naples, FL 34120 Joseph & Susan Niemiec 6881 Brompton Drive Middle District of Florida Lakeland, FL 33809 Frederick & Jessica Stockton 13095 Montego Street Middle District of Florida Spring Hill, FL 34609 Tim Hoffman 624 NE 2nd Place Middle District of Florida Cape Coral, FL 33909 Ina & Gary Helmick 13237 Emerald Acres Avenue Middle District of Florida Dover, FL 33527 Leonard & Loretha Armstrong 121 11th Avenue East Middle District of Florida Bradenton, FL 34208 Mercedes & Nicole Gaspard 1402 O'Donnell Lane, SE Southern District of Florida Port St. Lucie, FL 34983 Steve Binns 1417 SW Devera Avenue Southern District of Florida Port St. Lucie, FL 34953 Martin Kuntz 1417 SW Devera Avenue Southern District of Florida Port St. Lucie, FL 34953 Jackelyn Aquirre-Matat / o.b.o Home and 3310 NE 3 Dr. Southern District of Florida Land, Inc. Homestead, FL 33033 Karina Martinez 23631 SW 112 Ct. Southern District of Florida Homestead, FL 33032 Ruben Dapena o.b.o. Annetta, LLC & Baco 363 NE 30th Avenue Southern District of Florida Annetta LLC Homestead, FL 33033 Santiago Guzman o.b.o Skyline Glass, LLC 10769 NW 81 Lane Southern District of Florida Doral, FL 33178 Daniel & Shona Blonsky 8220 SW 60 CT Southern District of Florida South Miami, FL 33143 Elena Kendalll & A&B Real Estate Holdings, 23205 SW 217 Avenue Southern District of Florida LLC Miami, FL 33031 Isidro & Marfelia Calderon 3441 SW Haines Street Southern District of Florida Port St. Lucie, FL 34953 Elvis Ferrera 22079 SW 88 Path Southern District of Florida Cutler Bay, FL 33190 Julio Martinez 14731 SW 34 Lane Southern District of Florida Miami, FL 33185 Levi Taylor 4090 SW Kallen Street Southern District of Florida Port St. Lucie, FL 34953 Carlos Salabarria 12940 SW 135 St. Southern District of Florida Miami, FL 33186 Dolores Jarvis 1743 North Olivia Drive Southern District of Florida Avon Park, FL 33825 Bruno Esteban Ullauri Paredes & Karina 5952 SW 102 St. Southern District of Florida Jannine Svoboda Straka Pinecrest, FL 33156 Kevin Karpel 17770 64th Place North Southern District of Florida Loxahatchee, FL 33470 Laura Veira & Aliesky Santiago 14763 SW 35 Lane Southern District of Florida Miami, FL 33185 Sebring, FL 33872 Nancy & William Mansour 8678 Tally Ho Lane Southern District of Florida Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411 Neville Marques 1722 NE 6th Street Southern District of Florida Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Rennie & Amrita Roopchand 15320 87th Road North Southern District of Florida Loxahatchee, FL 33470 Michelle & Michael Goldenberg 12176 SW 49th Court Southern District of Florida Cooper City, FL 33330 Christopher Payton 19 Money Hill Lane Southern District of Mississippi Poplarville, MS 39470 Sherwood & Jody Bailey o.b.o. Carlisle 829 East Scenic Drive Southern District of Mississippi Place, LLC & Michael Christovich Pass Christian, MS 39571 Susyn Cain & Richard Calevro 5040 Georgia Street Southern District of Mississippi Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 David & Candace Fozard 72685 Diamondhead Drive North Southern District of Mississippi Diamondhead, MS 39525 The Van Tran 12912 Rosemont Street Southern District of Mississippi & Chin Thi Nguyen Ocean Springs, MS 39564 Mary Sue Caranna 224 Pinewood Drive Southern District of Mississippi Pass Christian, MS 39571 Yulunda (Karen) McAlister & Stephanie 229 Felicity Street Southern District of Mississippi Fussell Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 George & Mary Ann Ferry 101 Lakeside Drive Southern District of Mississippi Waveland, MS 39576 Jack & Wanda Green 1709 Seacrest Drive Southern District of Mississippi Gautier, MS 39553 Mark & Shannon Renee Lee 308 Italian Isle Road Southern District of Mississippi Gautier, MS 39553 David & Birttany Martino 245 McDonnell Blvd., F-138 Southern District of Mississippi Biloxi, MS 39531 George Humphries III & George Humphries 11209 Texas Street Southern District of Mississippi IV Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 Nancy & Larry Lafontaine 478 St. Charles Street Southern District of Mississippi Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 Peggy A. & Billy McCullar 603 East Second Street Southern District of Mississippi Pass Christian, MS 39571 Wade & Sheryl Gauthreaux 10171 Lagan Street Southern District of Mississippi Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 Karen Beth & David Neil Baldwin 909 High Ridge Drive Southern District of Texas Friendswood, TX 77546 Frank & Suzan Grande/CJ Properties 7 Nevin Court Southern District of Texas Conroe, TX 77301