Flores v. Predco Services Corp.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Flores v. Predco Services Corp.

787 F. Supp. 2d 1348

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedMay 20, 2011

DocketMDL No. 2240

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 787 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (Flores v. Predco Services Corp.) 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

Flores v. Predco Services Corp., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (jpml 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel:

* Plaintiff in the District of New Jersey action, who is also claimant in the Southern District of Texas action, moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Texas. Defendants in the District of New Jersey action — McElroy Machine & Manufacturing, Co., Inc., and DVCC Services Corp. f/k/a Predco Services Corp. — oppose the motion.

After considering all argument of counsel, we will deny the motion. The motion encompasses only two actions, one of which has been held in abeyance until resolution of the issues in the other action. Given the current procedural status of these actions, little risk of duplicative pretrial proceedings exists at this time. Any commonality underlying both actions arises from a single January 2006 incident involving serious injuries to one person; such issues do not typically require centralization under Section 1407. See, e.g., See, e.g., In re Luke Fout and Todd Wuerdeman Litig., 657 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1371 (J.P.M.L.2009) (denying centralization in which three actions were “relatively straightforward personal injury actions arising from a single October 2007 incident in which hydrochloric acid leaked from a railcar”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these two actions is denied.

Judge Barbara S. Jones took no part in the decision of this matter.

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel:

* Plaintiff in the District of New Jersey action, who is also claimant in the Southern District of Texas action, moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Texas. Defendants in the District of New Jersey action — McElroy Machine & Manufacturing, Co., Inc., and DVCC Services Corp. f/k/a Predco Services Corp. — oppose the motion.

After considering all argument of counsel, we will deny the motion. The motion encompasses only two actions, one of which has been held in abeyance until resolution of the issues in the other action. Given the current procedural status of these actions, little risk of duplicative pretrial proceedings exists at this time. Any commonality underlying both actions arises from a single January 2006 incident involving serious injuries to one person; such issues do not typically require centralization under Section 1407. See, e.g., See, e.g., In re Luke Fout and Todd Wuerdeman Litig., 657 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1371 (J.P.M.L.2009) (denying centralization in which three actions were “relatively straightforward personal injury actions arising from a single October 2007 incident in which hydrochloric acid leaked from a railcar”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these two actions is denied.

Judge Barbara S. Jones took no part in the decision of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 F. Supp. 2d 1348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-predco-services-corp-jpml-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack