Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 44, PageID.2067 Filed 08/04/22 Page 1 of 4
`Case MDL No. 3040 Document 44 Filed 08/03/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy
`of the original on file in this office.
`Clerk, U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Michigan
`
`By:
`Sarah Schoenherr
`Deputy
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`IN RE: CHRYSLER PACIFICA FIRE RECALL
`PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`MDL No. 3040
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`Before the Panel:(cid:13) Plaintiff in one action (Olsen) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
`centralize this litigation in either the Northern District of California or the Central District of
`California. This litigation currently consists of seven actions pending in four districts – three
`actions in the Eastern District of Michigan and four actions in various California districts, as listed
`on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of four related actions
`– one in the Eastern District of Michigan (Ramirez), one in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
`(Bagley), and two in the Central District of California (Travato and Macias).1 The four actions in
`the Eastern District of Michigan (including Ramirez) recently were consolidated for all purposes.
`Thus, there are effectively eight related actions before the Panel, including potential tag-along
`actions, pending in five districts.
`
`Plaintiffs in three of the California actions, along with the Pennsylvania plaintiffs, support
`centralization in either the Northern or Central District of California. The Pennsylvania plaintiffs
`alternatively request the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Common defendant FCA US LLC
`(“FCA”) and plaintiffs in the consolidated Michigan actions oppose centralization under Section
`1407, in favor of transfer of the California and Pennsylvania actions, and any other related actions,
`to the Eastern District of Michigan under Section 1404 or the first-to-file rule. Alternatively, FCA
`and plaintiffs in the Michigan actions request the Eastern District of Michigan as transferee district.
`
`On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
`involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan will
`serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
`this litigation. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the
`allegation that Chrysler Pacifica Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (model years 2017 and 2018)
`have a defect that makes them prone to fire and explosion and that the manufacturer’s voluntary
`recall notice issued on February 11, 2022, is inadequate. The common factual questions include:
`(1) the nature of the alleged defect; (2) whether defendant FCA knew, or should have known, of
`
`(cid:13) Judge Roger T. Benitez did not participate in the decision of this matter.
`
`1 These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1
`and 7.2.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 44, PageID.2068 Filed 08/04/22 Page 2 of 4
`Case MDL No. 3040 Document 44 Filed 08/03/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`-2-
`
`the risk of fire and explosion; (3) defendant’s conduct regarding the design, manufacturing,
`marketing and sales of the vehicle; (4) the events pertaining to the FCA investigation and recall;
`and (5) the measure of any damages, including diminution in value, loss of use, and other alleged
`economic losses. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
`rulings, including with respect to class certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the
`resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
`
`In opposing centralization, defendant and plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Michigan
`actions principally argue that transfer under Section 1404 or the first-to-file rule is practicable and
`preferable to centralization, noting, inter alia, that such transfer would enable the actions to be
`consolidated for all purposes including trial. On a number of occasions this Panel has denied
`centralization where a “reasonable prospect” exists that Section 1404 or first-to-file motions
`will eliminate the multidistrict character of a litigation. See In re Gerber Probiotic Prods. Mktg.
`& Sales Practices Litig., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1379-80 (J.P.M.L. 2012). The mere pendency
`of such motions, though, is not necessarily sufficient to defeat centralization: “we look to other
`circumstances to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect that the Section 1404 motions
`will resolve the difficulties posed by duplicative multidistrict litigation – for example, the
`amenability of counsel to Section 1404 transfer, orders addressing transfer in the underlying
`actions, and the likelihood of potential tag-along actions.” See In re Natrol, Inc., Glucosamine/
`Chondroitin Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 26 F. Supp. 3d 1392, 1393 (J.P.M.L. 2014). Here,
`none of the plaintiffs in the actions outside of Michigan have indicated a willingness to agree to
`transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan, nor do the records in their actions indicate that a
`transfer order is imminent. Additionally, we have been notified of three potential tag-along actions
`outside of Michigan since the filing of the motion for centralization, each involving additional,
`nonoverlapping counsel.2 Considering the number of involved districts, the wholesale absence of
`any transfer activity, and the potential tag-along actions, we find that transfer under Section 1404
`or the first-to-file rule does not provide a reasonable prospect for eliminating the multidistrict
`character of this litigation.
`
`We conclude that the Eastern District of Michigan is the appropriate transferee district.
`Defendant FCA US LLC has its headquarters in this district, and represents that the core witnesses
`and documents regarding the subject vehicles are located there. Four actions already have been
`consolidated in the Eastern District of Michigan. It also is centrally located and easily accessible,
`making it a convenient forum for this nationwide litigation. Judge David M. Lawson, to whom
`we assign this litigation, is an experienced transferee judge with the willingness and ability to
`manage this litigation efficiently. We are confident he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
`the Eastern District of Michigan are transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan and, with the
`consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable David M. Lawson for coordinated or consolidated
`pretrial proceedings.
`
`2 Movant’ counsel also represented in the Panel briefing that their communications with putative
`class members indicate that additional actions are likely.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 44, PageID.2069 Filed 08/04/22 Page 3 of 4
`Case MDL No. 3040 Document 44 Filed 08/03/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`-3-
`
`PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`_________________________________________
`Karen K. Caldwell
`Chair
`
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`David C. Norton
`Madeline Cox Arleo
`
`Matthew F. Kennelly
`Dale A. Kimball
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 44, PageID.2070 Filed 08/04/22 Page 4 of 4
`Case MDL No. 3040 Document 44 Filed 08/03/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`IN RE: CHRYSLER PACIFICA FIRE RECALL
`PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`MDL No. 3040
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`Central District of California
`
`REILMAN v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 8:22−00811
`
`2:22-cv-11804
`
`Northern District of California
`
`2:22-cv-11805
`LAWRENCE v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES, FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 3:22−02372
`GOMEZ v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 5:22−02171
`2:22-cv-11806
`
`Southern District of California
`
`OLSEN v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES (FCA) US LLC, C.A. No. 3:22−00368
`2:22-cv-11807
`
`Eastern District of Michigan
`
`HUNTINGTON, ET AL. v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 4:22−10508
`SCHUMANN, ET AL. v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 4:22−10771
`FINDEISS, ET AL. v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 4:22−10850
`
`