844 F. Supp. 2d 1377
J.P.M.L.2012Background
- MDL panel denied centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407 for Yellow Brass Plumbing Component case series.
- Action span: 13 actions across three districts plus 9 potentially related actions; Schedule A lists these actions.
- Parties proposed various centralization or coordination strategies; some defendants opposed, others supported centralization of specific Uponor/Wirsbo claims.
- Key factual issues involve multiple standards (F1807, F1960, F2080) for brass fittings and diverse product origins from several manufacturers.
- Plaintiffs include homeowners associations and individuals; several actions include additional plumbing components and potential non-Nevada cases.
- Panel emphasized substantial localized causation differences, multiple manufacturers, and procedural considerations (arbitration, pre-litigation compliance) outweigh centralization benefits; encouraged voluntary coordination instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the actions be centralized under §1407? | Moving parties seek uniform resolution and efficiency. | Multiplicity of standards, defendants, and actions undermines efficiency. | Centralization denied; not served by centralization. |
| Is voluntary coordination a preferable alternative to centralization? | Coordination could reduce duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings. | Coordination may be insufficient given diverse actions and standards. | Panel endorses voluntary coordination as preferable and appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adelphia Communications Corp. Sec. & Derivative Litig., 213 F.Supp.2d 1353 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (Rule of necessity; panel participation allowed decision)
- In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig., 170 F.Supp.2d 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2001) (centralization considerations in communications device litigation)
- In re: Janus Mutual Funds Investment Litig., 310 F.Supp.2d 1359 (J.P.M.L. 2004) (centralization decisions and complex litigation management)
- In re Ambulatory Pain Pump-Chondrolysis Prods. Liab. Litig., 709 F.Supp.2d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (multidistrict coordination considerations)
- In re Table Saw Prods. Liab. Litig., 641 F.Supp.2d 1384 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (product liability MDL coordination standards)
- In re Zum Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 572 F.Supp.2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (factors for centralization in plumbing fittings cases)
- In re Kitec Plumbing System Prods. Liab. Litig., 655 F.Supp.2d 1364 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (centralization considerations for widespread plumbing products)
- In re Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Prods. Liab. Litig., 787 F.Supp.2d 1351 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (precedent on Uponor products and standard-specific issues)