Vehimax International, LLC v. Jui Li Enterprise Co.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Vehimax International, LLC v. Jui Li Enterprise Co.

657 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113973

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedDecember 3, 2009

DocketMDL No. 2113

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 657 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (Vehimax International, LLC v. Jui Li Enterprise Co.) 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

Vehimax International, LLC v. Jui Li Enterprise Co., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113973 (jpml 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiff in the Central District of California action moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Central District of California or, in the alternative, the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs motion encompasses two actions pending, respectively, in the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Defendants Gordon Auto Body Parts USA Corp. and Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., support the motion for centralization in the Central District of California, but oppose centralization in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Defendant Auto Parts Industrial, Ltd., supports centralization in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No other party responded to the motion; however, at oral argument, moving plaintiff represented that plaintiff in the Eastern District of Wisconsin also agreed with centralization.

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. In this docket encompassing only two actions, with two plaintiffs and six defendants, the proponents of centralization have failed to convince us that any common questions of fact between these actions justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Instead, counsel in both actions can avail themselves of alternatives to transfer. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004). Given the limited number of districts and parties involved in this litigation, cooperation among the counsel can minimize whatever possibilities there are of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, is denied.

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: Plaintiff in the Central District of California action moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Central District of California or, in the alternative, the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs motion encompasses two actions pending, respectively, in the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Defendants Gordon Auto Body Parts USA Corp. and Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., support the motion for centralization in the Central District of California, but oppose centralization in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Defendant Auto Parts Industrial, Ltd., supports centralization in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No other party responded to the motion; however, at oral argument, moving plaintiff represented that plaintiff in the Eastern District of Wisconsin also agreed with centralization.

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. In this docket encompassing only two actions, with two plaintiffs and six defendants, the proponents of centralization have failed to convince us that any common questions of fact between these actions justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. Instead, counsel in both actions can avail themselves of alternatives to transfer. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004). Given the limited number of districts and parties involved in this litigation, cooperation among the counsel can minimize whatever possibilities there are of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vehimax-international-llc-v-jui-li-enterprise-co-jpml-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack