Smith, Jr. v. Ford Motor Company
This text of Smith, Jr. v. Ford Motor Company (Smith, Jr. v. Ford Motor Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
EEE EEE EEE FILED □ CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL DEC - 3 2021 on ocean MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION pee
IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2814
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO —63)
On February 2, 2018, the Panel transferred 75 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Central District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See 289 F.Supp.3d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2018). Since that time, 476 additional action(s) have been transferred to the Central District of California. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr. Ii appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Central District of California and assigned to Judge Birotte. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Central District of California for the reasons stated in the order of February 2, 2018, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr. This order does not become effective until it 1s filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7—day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.
FOR THE PANEL: fect CL Zs Poa oe Ctatoomes John W. Nichols MUCTIGE TRIG? LRH C 1 e rk f th e P anel
enn ne eee ee nn nn nn nn IE I OO
IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2814
SCHEDULE CTO-63 — TAG-ALONG ACTIONS
DIST. DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION
CALIFORNIA EASTERN CAE 1 21-01654 Smith, Jr. et.al v. Ford Motor Company 2:21-CV-09391-AB-PVCx
DEC -3 c02l ans hereby attest and certify on Pe 8. Ctr he. that the foregoing document Is a full, true shy Sa and correct copy ofthe original onfiiein = Wa" GAGE my office, and in my legal custody. 3 Bie CLERK US. DISTRICT COURT a \Sasne/ & CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AOS bie Tipp att ot a 1248
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Smith, Jr. v. Ford Motor Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-jr-v-ford-motor-company-caed-2021.