Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_19-cv-00082/USCOURTS-ared-1_19-cv-00082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: SMITTY’S/CAM2 303 TRACTOR HYDRAULIC FLUID MDL No. 2936

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY

LITIGATION

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Common defendants Smitty’s Supply, Inc., and CAM2 International,

L.L.C., move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana

or, alternatively, the Southern District of Texas. This litigation currently consists of eight actions

pending in eight districts, as listed on Schedule A. 

Plaintiffs in all actions oppose centralization. In the event that the actions are centralized

over their objection, they suggest the Western District of Missouri or, alternatively, the District of

Kansas. Defendants Tractor Supply Company and Orscheln Farm and Home, LLC, support

centralization in the Southern District of Texas. Defendant Rural King supports centralization,

taking no position on the appropriate district. 

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,1 we find that these actions

involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Kansas will serve the

convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. 

These putative class actions share complex factual questions arising from nearlyidentical allegations

concerning the manufacture, labeling, marketing, and performance of Smitty’s 303 tractor hydraulic

fluid (THF) products, including those made for and sold by CAM2 International.2 Plaintiffs in all

actions allege that defendants (1) deceptively marketed the products as meeting John Deere 303

specifications that allegedly became obsolete in the 1970s when an essential ingredient – sperm

whale oil – was banned from use; (2) misrepresented the products’ anti-wear and protective benefits;

and (3) used inferior ingredients such as used oils and diluted additives that caused damage to

plaintiffs’ equipment. All actions further allege that plaintiffs suffered economic losses from buying

an allegedly worthless product or a product worth less than plaintiffs paid. Centralization will

eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especiallywith respect to class

1

In light of the concerns about the spread of COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel

heard oral argument by videoconference at its hearing session of May 28, 2020. See Suppl. Notice

of Hearing Session, MDL No. 2936 (J.P.M.L. May 12, 2020), ECF No. 30.

2 The products at issue are Super S Supertrac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid; Super S 303

Tractor Hydraulic Fluid; CAM2 ProMax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil; and CAM2 303

Tractor Hydraulic Oil. 

Case MOW/3:19-cv-05089 Document 25 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 4

Case 4:20-md-02936-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 4

ECF DOCUMENT

I hereby attest and certify this is a printed copy of a 

document which was electronically filed with the United States

District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Date Filed:_________________Paige A. Wymore-Wynn, Clerk

By:_______________________________________Deputy Clerk

6/2/2020 /s/ Kiambu Houston

Case 1:19-cv-00082-LPR Document 43 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 4
-2-

certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the

judiciary.

In opposing centralization, plaintiffs principally argue that informal coordination is a

practicable and preferable alternative to centralization. They assert that informal coordination of

discovery across all actions already is in progress; the vast majority of common document discovery

is complete; and coordination is readily practicable because plaintiffs in all actions are represented

by the same counsel, and defendants also are represented by common counsel. They further argue

that centralization likely would delay proceedings in Zornes, in which class certification discovery

is largely complete and a motion for class certification is pending. In response, defendants assert that

informal coordination has been ineffective, describing an increasing number of substantive discovery

disputes, and that discovery in most actions remains at an early stage.

On balance, we find that centralization is preferable to informal coordination in this

litigation. While we strongly encourage informal coordination, the record before us indicates that

the development of numerous and significant discovery disputes will be a significant obstacle to

efficient coordination in this litigation. For example, defendants assert that several depositions taken

by plaintiffs’ counsel in the District of Kansas Zornes action are duplicative of those taken in a

recently resolved action (Hornbeck) involving the same subject matter and counsel. The parties also

have been involved in a protracted dispute over the deposition of an executive level witness who

likelywill be common to all actions. And the litigation will involve significant expert discovery and

Daubert motions, as to which informal coordination likely will be inadequate. Additionally, there

are eight actions pending in eight different states.3 All actions remain in discovery, including

Zornes. Voluntary coordination across these dispersed districts, especially given the complexity of

the factual questions and the number and nature of discovery disputes, appears problematic.

We conclude that the Western District of Missouri is an appropriate transferee forum. It is

centrally located and easily accessible, making it a convenient forum for this nationwide litigation. 

The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, who presides over the Graves action on the motion, is familiar

with the issues in this litigation. He is an experienced jurist with the ability and willingness to

manage this litigation efficiently. We are confident he will steer this matter on a prudent course.

3 Although the putative statewide classes are geographicallydistinct, theyinvolve many

common issues, including overlapping putative class representatives and expert witnesses.

Case MOW/3:19-cv-05089 Document 25 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 4:20-md-02936-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:19-cv-00082-LPR Document 43 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 4
-3-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside

the Western District of Missouri are transferred to the Western District of Missouri and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Stephen R. Bough for coordinated or consolidated

pretrial proceedings. 

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Karen K. Caldwell

 Chair

Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor

Catherine D. Perry Nathaniel M. Gorton

Matthew F. Kennelly David C. Norton

Case MOW/3:19-cv-05089 Document 25 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 4

Case 4:20-md-02936-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:19-cv-00082-LPR Document 43 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 4
IN RE: SMITTY’S/CAM2 303 TRACTOR HYDRAULIC FLUID MDL No. 2936

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY

LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of Arkansas

BUFORD v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-00082

Eastern District of California

FOSDICK, ET AL. v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-01850

Northern District of Iowa

BLACKMORE, ET AL. v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., C.A. No. 5:19-04052

District of Kansas

ZORNES, ET AL. v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-02257

Western District of Kentucky

WURTH v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-00092

District of Minnesota

KLINGENBERG v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-02684

Western District of Missouri

GRAVES, ET AL. v. CAM2 INTERNATIONAL LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-05089

Southern District of Texas

MABIE v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-03308

Case MOW/3:19-cv-05089 Document 25 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 4

Case 4:20-md-02936-SRB Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:19-cv-00082-LPR Document 43 Filed 06/03/20 Page 4 of 4