In re Sears, Roebuck Co. Tools Marketing

Full title: In re Sears, Roebuck Co. Tools Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Date published: Aug 12, 2005

381 F. Supp. 2d 1383 (J.P.M.L. 2005)

Opinion

No. MDL-1703.

August 12, 2005.

Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ,^_ ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL and DAVID R. HANSEN, Judges of the Panel.

_ Judge Motz took no part in the decision of this matter.

TRANSFER ORDER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of the three actions in the Northern District of Illinois and one action each in the Central District of California, the Southern District of Florida, and the Eastern District of Missouri as listed on the attached Schedule A. Before the Panel is a motion for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of these actions in the Northern District of Illinois, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, brought by the sole defendant in all actions, Sears, Roebuck Co. (Sears). All responding plaintiffs¹ support or do not oppose Sears's motion.

1 Plaintiffs in the Central District of California action conditionally opposed Sears's motion, arguing that their action should be remanded to state court because the federal court is without jurisdiction over the matter, which would have mooted Sears's motion with respect to their action. Judge Manuel L. Real, however, denied their motion to remand. As a result, the Central District of California plaintiffs no longer oppose transfer to the Northern District of Illinois.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these six actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions concern whether Sears misrepresented its Craftsman line of tools as made in the United States. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly with respect to the issue of class certification), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

We are persuaded that the Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee forum for this docket. Defendant's motion is unopposed by all responding parties, and relevant discovery will likely

SCHEDULE A

MDL-1703 — In re Sears, Roebuck Co. Tools Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation Central District of California Guillermo Garcia Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck Co., C.A. No. 2:05-3039

Southern District of Florida Jeffrey Greenfield v. Sears, Roebuck Co., C.A. No. 1:05-21297

Northern District of Illinois Larry Steven Anderson, Jr., et al. v. Sears, Roebuck Co., C.A. No. 1:05-2623

Tammy Cyr v. Sears, Roebuck Co., C.A. No. 1:05-2627

Charles Chatham v. Sears, Roebuck Co., C.A. No. 1:05-2852

Eastern District of Missouri Tracy Hutson v. Sears, Roebuck Co., C.A. No. 4:05-760