In re Cca Treated Wood Products Liab. Litigation
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Bank of America Fiduciary Accounts Lit. (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2006)
- In re Air Crash Near Canandaigua, Ny, on Sept. (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2006)
- Maloney v. McFarland Johnson, Inc. (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2006)
- In re Boeing Co. Employment Practices Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2003)
- In re Daimlerchrysler Corp. Seat Belt Buckle Products Liability Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2002)
- In re Unitrin, Inc., Insurance Sales Practices Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2002)
- In re American General Finance, Inc., Credit Insurance Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2002)
- In re First Union Mortg. Corp. Yield Spread Prem. (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2002)
- Coker v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp. (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In re CHROMATED COPPER ARSENATE (CCA) TREATED WOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Jerry Jacobs
v.
Osmose, Inc., et al., S.D. Florida, C.A. No. 1:01-944
Albert Miller, et al.
v.
Home Depot, USA, Inc., et al., W.D. Louisiana, C.A. No. 2:01-859
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, MOREY L. SEAR, BRUCE M. SELYA,[*] JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSEN and J. FREDERICK MOTZ, Judges of the Panel.
*1381 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
HODGES, Chairman.
This litigation consists of two actions pending, respectively, in the Southern District of Florida and the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiff in the Florida action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Southern District of Florida. All responding defendants, as well as plaintiffs in the Louisiana action, oppose transfer.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movant has failed to persuade us at this time that any common questions of fact and law in this docket are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. We point out that alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit. 1978). See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 31.14 (1995).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these two actions is DENIED.
NOTES
[*] Judge Selya took no part in the decision of this matter.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.