We have posted before about the MDL process and the importance of the initial decision by the Panel on ordering coordination. Last week the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to consolidate the suits by plaintiffs alleging injuries over brass plumbing fittings.See In re Uponor Inc., F1960 Plumbing Fittings Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2393 (JPML 9/27/12).
The plaintiffs alleged in this litigation that high-zinc-content brass components on the plumbing fittings failed, due to corrosion that caused the loss of zinc. This resulted, they said, in various forms of property damage, including the loss of integrity of the components, leaks, loss of water pressure, and other problems.This litigation currently consists of nineteen actions pending in seven districts, but the Panel was notified of four additional, potentially related actions.
All involved homeowners supported plaintiff’s motion. The Uponor/Wirsbo defendants also supported the motion but other responding defendants, which are various plumbing and supply defendants, builders, or installers, opposed the motion and, alternatively, suggested a different transferee forum.
The Panel rejected the motion, noting that "several practical considerations" make the request to centralize unworkable. Most fundamentally, this request rested on a factual assumption – that F1960 fittings are involved in every action – that required the Panel to make a determination not apparent on the face of most complaints. Very few complaints actually mentioned the F1960 standard. Instead, plaintiffs typically framed their complaints as broadly involving high zinc yellow brass fittings and other attendant components. The exceedingly general language that the homeowners employed in most actions to describe the defective components at issue made it impossible in most cases to transfer “F1960 claims” and then separate and remand, other product claims.
But even assuming that the court could separate and remand the non-F1960 claims, the proposed transfer would still double the forums in which numerous local defendants would have to litigate, or [in an important practical observation] at a minimum, monitor. Centralization might thus force many local defendants – builders, plumbers, suppliers – to prosecute their indemnity claims against the manufacturer in the MDL, while still having to defend claims that they supplied, built homes with, or installed defective plumbing components elsewhere.
Fragmentation of this litigation, said the Panel, also would increase the risk that the involved courts will rule inconsistently on identical issues of state law, such as issues of compliance with Nevada’s unique state pre-litigation statute regarding construction defects. The potential inefficiencies and inconvenience associated with centralizing this litigation, separating out F1960 claims etc., outweigh any possible benefits of, or added efficiencies to, resolving common claims regarding the F1960 fittings.
"Centralization is not a cure-all for every group of complicated cases." The actions here were in distinct procedural postures, and most of the advanced actions seem to be progressing well in the District of Nevada.
Thus, moving parties failed to convince the Panel that Section 1407 transfer of F1960 claims will benefit the parties and witnesses, or that centralization will produce sufficient clarity or efficiency in this already complicated litigation to outweigh the added inconvenience, confusion and cost that would be imposed on numerous parties.