Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00531/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00531-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

1

19-CV-531-GPC-LL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANNETTE TOLLESON and 

WENDELL R. TOLLESON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a

Delaware Corporation, and PERRY

FORD OF NATIONAL CITY, LLC, a

California Limited Liability Company,

dba PERRY FORD ON THE MILE OF

CARS DBA PERRY FORD OF NTL

CITY; and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-531-GPC-LL

Order Denying Request to Assign Case 

to the Honorable André Birotte Jr. 

[ECF No. 5.]

Defendant Ford Motor Company has filed a request with this Court for an 

assignment of the above-paneled case to the Honorable André Birotte Jr., Central District 

of California, pursuant to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (J.P.M.L.) Rule 7.2(a). 

(ECF No. 5.) The J.P.M.L. had previously granted Ford a motion to transfer and 

consolidate a number of product liability disputes over its powershift transmissions to the 

Central District of California. (ECF No. 5-1.)

Case 3:19-cv-00531-GPC-LL Document 10 Filed 04/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-CV-531-GPC-LL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) transfers “shall be 

made by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation . . . upon its determination that 

transfers for such proceedings will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and 

will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). After 

a transfer is ordered to a transferee court under Section 1407, any additional tag-along 

actions are addressed by Rule 7.1(a), which provides that “[a]ny party or counsel . . . 

shall promptly notify the Clerk of the Panel of any potential tag-along actions in which 

that party is also named or in which counsel appears. J.P.M.L. R. 7.1(a). Rule 7.1(b) 

continues, “[u]pon learning of the pendency of a potential tag-along action, the Clerk of 

the Panel may enter a conditional order transferring that action to the previously 

designated transferee district court.” J.P.M.L. R. 7.1(b).

Rule 7.2 creates an exception to the ordinary Rule 7.1 procedures for assignments. 

“Potential tag-along actions filed in the transferee district do not require panel action.” 

J.P.M.L. R. 7.2(a). To invoke this exception, a party need only “request assignment of 

such actions to the Section 1407 transferee judge in accordance with the applicable local 

rules.” Id. 

Ford points the Court to “Local Rule 83-1.4.3.” (ECF No. 5, at 1.) There is no 

such local rule in the Southern District of California, so the Court can only surmise that 

Ford was referring to a local rule of the Central District. Even assuming counterfactually

an out-of-district local rule may bind this Court, Ford cannot be granted its requested 

relief—i.e., assignment of this case to Judge Birotte—without first obtaining a 

conditional order of transfer from the J.P.M.L. Specifically, it appears that Rule 7.1(a) 

governs the present situation, not 7.2(a). Rule 7.2(a) is addressed to potential tag-along 

actions “filed in the transferee district”; those actions alone do “not require panel action.” 

J.P.M.L. R. 7.2(a) (emphasis). Otherwise, the default prescription of Rule 7.1(a) applies. 

Accordingly, Ford’s request under Rule 7.2(a) is DENIED. 

Case 3:19-cv-00531-GPC-LL Document 10 Filed 04/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-CV-531-GPC-LL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: April 2, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00531-GPC-LL Document 10 Filed 04/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3