Carter v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

452 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 2006 WL 2548199
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedAugust 29, 2006
DocketNo. 1790
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 452 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Carter v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carter v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 2006 WL 2548199 (jpml 2006).

Opinion

TRANSFER ORDER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of one action pending in each of the following districts: the Central District of California, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.1 The parties jointly move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in either the Southern District of Illinois or the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in all actions support transfer to the former district, while defendant Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) supports transfer to the latter district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these four actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions are putative statewide class actions that share factual questions concerning the propriety of Volkswagen’s August 2004 warranty extension/reimbursement program regarding the 1.8 liter turbocharged engines installed on approximately 462,000 Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles. Plaintiffs bring various state common law claims such as breach of contract [1356]*1356and unjust enrichment, in addition to claims under state statutory law concerning consumer fraud or unfair and deceptive trade practices. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

We are of the view that the District of Massachusetts is an appropriate transferee forum for this docket. By centralizing this litigation before Judge Joseph Tauro, we are assigning this litigation to a jurist who has both the time and experience to steer this litigation on a prudent course.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions are transferred to the District of Massachusetts and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joseph Tauro for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Volkswagen and Audi Warranty Extention Lit.
452 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
452 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 2006 WL 2548199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-volkswagen-of-america-inc-jpml-2006.