In Re Firestone/Ford Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Firestone/Ford Litigation

166 S.W.3d 2, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 1461, 2004 WL 3328642

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedMay 4, 2004

Docket04-0262

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 S.W.3d 2 (In Re Firestone/Ford Litigation) 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

In Re Firestone/Ford Litigation, 166 S.W.3d 2, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 1461, 2004 WL 3328642 (jpml 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

THE MOTION FOR TRANSFER IN THE' FOLLOWING MULTIDIS-TRICT LITIGATION CASE IS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:

PER CURIAM.

On March 19, 2004, Bridgestone/Fire-stone and Ford filed a motion for MDL transfer concerning the following tread-separation cases: Cause No. 2003-5187, Dorothy Aragon, Et Al. v. Bridge-stone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Et Al, 327th Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas; Cause No. 03-C-780, Ronald D. Ratliff; Et Al. v. Bridge- *3 stone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Et Al., 5th Judicial District Court of Cass County, Texas; and Cause No. CV03-51791-43, Julie Pressley, Et Al. v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Et Al., 43rd Judicial District Court of Parker County, Texas. The motion was served on all plaintiffs’ counsel on March 18. A response was due 20 days from service of the motion. See Rule 13.3(d). No response has been filed.

Having reviewed the unopposed motion and the exhibits, the panel has concluded that the cases involve common questions of fact and that transferring them to a pretrial judge would be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and would promote the just and efficient conduct of the cases.

The motion to transfer is granted, and the cases are transferred to Hon. Michael Mayes, Judge of the 410th District Court of Montgomery County.

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

THE MOTION FOR TRANSFER IN THE' FOLLOWING MULTIDIS-TRICT LITIGATION CASE IS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:

PER CURIAM.

On March 19, 2004, Bridgestone/Fire-stone and Ford filed a motion for MDL transfer concerning the following tread-separation cases: Cause No. 2003-5187, Dorothy Aragon, Et Al. v. Bridge-stone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Et Al, 327th Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas; Cause No. 03-C-780, Ronald D. Ratliff; Et Al. v. Bridge- *3 stone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Et Al., 5th Judicial District Court of Cass County, Texas; and Cause No. CV03-51791-43, Julie Pressley, Et Al. v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Et Al., 43rd Judicial District Court of Parker County, Texas. The motion was served on all plaintiffs’ counsel on March 18. A response was due 20 days from service of the motion. See Rule 13.3(d). No response has been filed.

Having reviewed the unopposed motion and the exhibits, the panel has concluded that the cases involve common questions of fact and that transferring them to a pretrial judge would be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and would promote the just and efficient conduct of the cases.

The motion to transfer is granted, and the cases are transferred to Hon. Michael Mayes, Judge of the 410th District Court of Montgomery County.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.W.3d 2, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 1461, 2004 WL 3328642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-firestoneford-litigation-jpml-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack