Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

166 S.W.3d 2

In Re Firestone/Ford Litigation

Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation

Decided May 4, 2004

Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation · decided 2004-05-04

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whether we are hearing an original motion for transfer to a pretrial court under Rule 13.3, or reviewing an order by a pretrial court remanding a matter on the ground that it is not a tag-along case under Rule 13.5(e), our duty is the same: we must determine whether the cases in question involve one or more common questions of fact and whether placing them together in the same pretrial court will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including In re Wellington Insurance Co. Hailstorm Litigation

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-05-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2020

1 state decisions

50200420102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 THE MOTION FOR TRANSFER IN THE' FOLLOWING MULTIDIS-TRICT LITIGATION CASE IS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:

PER CURIAM.

¶2 On March 19, 2004, Bridgestone/Fire-stone and Ford filed a motion for MDL transfer concerning the following tread-separation cases: Cause No. 2003-5187, Dorothy Aragon, Et Al. v. Bridge-stone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Et Al, 327th Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas; Cause No. 03-C-780, Ronald D. Ratliff; Et Al. v. Bridge- *3 stone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Et Al., 5th Judicial District Court of Cass County, Texas; and Cause No. CV03-51791-43, Julie Pressley, Et Al. v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Et Al., 43rd Judicial District Court of Parker County, Texas. The motion was served on all plaintiffs’ counsel on March 18. A response was due 20 days from service of the motion. See Rule 13.3(d). No response has been filed.

¶3 Having reviewed the unopposed motion and the exhibits, the panel has concluded that the cases involve common questions of fact and that transferring them to a pretrial judge would be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and would promote the just and efficient conduct of the cases.

¶4 The motion to transfer is granted, and the cases are transferred to Hon. Michael Mayes, Judge of the 410th District Court of Montgomery County.

/166/sw3d/2 · .json · Public domain