Calder v. A.O. Smith Corporation

Full title: THOMAS CALDER, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION; AIRCO/THE BOC GROUP…

Court: United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Jun 1, 2004

Civil No. 04-1481 (JRT/AJB) (D. Minn. Jun. 1, 2004)

Opinion

Civil No. 04-1481 (JRT/AJB).

June 1, 2004

Charles S. Zimmerman, Ronald S. Goldser, Stacy K. Hauer, ZIMMERMAN REED, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff.

Courtney Ward-Reichard, HALLELAND LEWIS NILAN SIPKINS JOHNSON, P.A., Minneapolis, MN and John S. Sandberg, SANDBERG, PHOENIX von GONTARD, P.C., Louis, MO, for defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STAY

JOHN TUNHEIM, District Judge

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the above action on April 21, 2004. In his response, plaintiff advised the Court that he had moved to transfer the action into MDL 1535, In re: Welding Rods Products Liability Litigation, and requested that this Court stay action on defendants' Motion to Dismiss pending the MDL Panel's decision to transfer the case. It is appropriate to defer the resolution of certain pretrial matters until the Panel renders a decision with regard to whether a case should be transferred to the MDL court. See Manual for Complex Litigation § 31.131, at 252 (3^rd ed. 2000) ("[I]t may be advisable to defer certain matters until the panel has the opportunity to rule on transfer."). Deference to the MDL court for resolution of these matters provides the opportunity for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the multidistrict litigation system. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The Court will therefore grant plaintiff's motion.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Stay [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED, and defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 4] is STAYED pending transfer of this action by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel.