In RE McDONALD'S FRENCH FRIES LITIGATION

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In RE McDONALD'S FRENCH FRIES LITIGATION

545 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47351, 2008 WL 1818447

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedFebruary 12, 2008

DocketMDL 1784

StatusPublished

This text of 545 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (In RE McDONALD'S FRENCH FRIES 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 McDONALD'S FRENCH FRIES LITIGATION, 545 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47351, 2008 WL 1818447 (jpml 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in an action pending in the Eastern District of Missouri have moved pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), asking the Panel to vacate its order conditionally transferring the action to the Northern District of Illinois for inclusion in MDL No. 1784. Defendant McDonald’s Corp. (McDonald’s) opposes the motion.

After considering all argument of counsel, we find that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, and that transfer of this action to the Northern District of Illinois for inclusion in MDL No. 1784 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. We further find that transfer of this action is appropriate for reasons that we set out in our original order directing centralization in this docket. In that order, we held that the Northern District of Illinois was a proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving allegations concerning whether McDonald’s misled the public regarding the presence of gluten, wheat or dairy derivatives in its french fries. See In re McDonald’s French Fries Litigation, 444 F.Supp.2d 1342 (J.P.M.L.2006).

Plaintiffs can present any motion for remand to state court to the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir.1990); In re Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L.2001).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, this action is *1357 transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Elaine E. Buck-lo for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.

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

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in an action pending in the Eastern District of Missouri have moved pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), asking the Panel to vacate its order conditionally transferring the action to the Northern District of Illinois for inclusion in MDL No. 1784. Defendant McDonald’s Corp. (McDonald’s) opposes the motion.

After considering all argument of counsel, we find that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, and that transfer of this action to the Northern District of Illinois for inclusion in MDL No. 1784 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. We further find that transfer of this action is appropriate for reasons that we set out in our original order directing centralization in this docket. In that order, we held that the Northern District of Illinois was a proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving allegations concerning whether McDonald’s misled the public regarding the presence of gluten, wheat or dairy derivatives in its french fries. See In re McDonald’s French Fries Litigation, 444 F.Supp.2d 1342 (J.P.M.L.2006).

Plaintiffs can present any motion for remand to state court to the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir.1990); In re Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L.2001).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, this action is *1357 transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Elaine E. Buck-lo for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47351, 2008 WL 1818447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mcdonalds-french-fries-litigation-jpml-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack