In Re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

571 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92197, 2008 WL 3820820

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedAugust 12, 2008

DocketMDL 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 571 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (In Re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices 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 Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92197, 2008 WL 3820820 (jpml 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in all three actions have jointly moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the District of New Jersey. All responding defendants agree that centralization is appropriate. Defendant MTD Products, Inc., supports centralization in the District of New Jersey, while the nine other responding defendants 1 suggest centralization in the Southern District of Illinois or, alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois.

This litigation presently consists of three actions listed on Schedule A and pending in three districts as follows: one action each in the Northern District of California, the Southern District of Illinois and the District of New Jersey. 2

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. While these putative statewide class actions share some questions of fact relating to alleged fraudulent marketing of lawnmower engines, movants have failed to convince us that those questions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that may minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

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

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 1971 — IN RE: LAWNMOWER ENGINE HORSEPOWER MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

Northern District of California

Carl Phillips v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:08-2671

Southern District of Illinois

Ronnie Phillips, et al. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:06-412

District of New Jersey

William Fritz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:08-2545

1

. Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Deere & Co.; Tecumseh Products Co.; Briggs & Stratton Corp.; Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.; The Toro Co.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; The Kohler Co.; and Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc.

2

. The Panel has been notified of one additional related action.

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 entire Panel: Plaintiffs in all three actions have jointly moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the District of New Jersey. All responding defendants agree that centralization is appropriate. Defendant MTD Products, Inc., supports centralization in the District of New Jersey, while the nine other responding defendants 1 suggest centralization in the Southern District of Illinois or, alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois.

This litigation presently consists of three actions listed on Schedule A and pending in three districts as follows: one action each in the Northern District of California, the Southern District of Illinois and the District of New Jersey. 2

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. While these putative statewide class actions share some questions of fact relating to alleged fraudulent marketing of lawnmower engines, movants have failed to convince us that those questions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that may minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

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

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 1971 — IN RE: LAWNMOWER ENGINE HORSEPOWER MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

Northern District of California

Carl Phillips v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:08-2671

Southern District of Illinois

Ronnie Phillips, et al. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:06-412

District of New Jersey

William Fritz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:08-2545

1

. Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Deere & Co.; Tecumseh Products Co.; Briggs & Stratton Corp.; Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.; The Toro Co.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; The Kohler Co.; and Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc.

2

. The Panel has been notified of one additional related action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92197, 2008 WL 3820820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lawnmower-engine-horsepower-marketing-and-sales-practices-litigation-jpml-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack