Case Name: IN RE: BEHR DECKOVER MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-30
Citations: 285 F. Supp. 3d 1356
Docket Number: MDL No. 2821
Parties: IN RE: BEHR DECKOVER MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement 3d
Volume: 285
Pages: 1356–1358

Head Matter:
IN RE: BEHR DECKOVER MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
MDL No. 2821
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
January 30, 2018
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Sarah S. Vance, Chair Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in two actions (Rose and Edwards ) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation currently consists of nine actions pending in nine districts, as listed on Schedule A. All defendants and plaintiffs in two actions (Bishop and In re Behr Process Corp. ) oppose centralization, representing that they have reached an agreement in principle to settle the putative class claims in this litigation through a nationwide class settlement. Plaintiffs in four actions on the motion and two related actions support centralization, but request the Eastern District of California.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that centralization is not necessary at this time for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs' actions commonly allege that Behr DeckOver resurfacing and coating products prematurely peel and degrade and that defendants Behr and Home Depot falsely advertised the products' durability. But the parties in two actions on the motion recently reached an agreement on a nationwide class settlement, and a motion for preliminary approval of their proposed settlement is anticipated in less than a month. All interested parties will have the opportunity to object to or otherwise raise issues as to the adequacy of the proposed settlement when the motion for preliminary approval is filed. Centralization at this time could delay the settlement approval proceedings with little or no benefit to the parties and putative class members. See, e.g., In re: Wells Fargo Fraudulent Account Opening Litig. , 282 F.Supp.3d 1360, 2017 WL 1283679, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 5, 2017).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.
Certain Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this docket have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in the decision.
The Panel has been notified of four additional related actions.
Behr Process Corporation, Behr Paint Corporation, and Masco Corporation (together, Behr); and The Home Depot, Inc., and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (together, Home Depot).

Opinion:
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2821 - IN RE: BEHR DECKOVER MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Central District of California
IN RE BEHR PROCESS CORP., C.A. No. 8:17-01016
Eastern District of California
HAMILTON v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-01765
Middle District of Florida
HAMIL, ET AL. v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:17-02058
Northern District of Illinois
BISHOP, ET AL. v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-04464
District of New Jersey
BROCK v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-12341
Eastern District of New York
COLE, ET AL. v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-05052 Western District of North Carolina
EDWARDS v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00683
District of Oregon
LEIKER v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-01909
Western District of Washington
ROSE v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-01754