Legal Opinion
In re Uponor, Inc.
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Decided September 27, 2012No. MDL No. 2393PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman.
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff in a District of Minnesota action (George) seeks centralization of this litigation in the District of Minnesota; plaintiff requests transfer of all claims against Uponor related to F1960 brass fittings and separation and remand of all other claims. All involved homeowners support plaintiffs motion. Upo*1347nor/Wirsbo defendants1 also support the motion but request that all claims related to the F1960 fitting be transferred, with the remaining non-F1960 claims separated and remanded.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re Eli Lilly & Co.(cephalexin Monohydrate)United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1978
- In Re Plumbing Fixture CasesUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1968
- In re Yellow Brass Plumbing Component Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
3Cited by3 opinions
- George v. Uponor Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
- George v. Uponor, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
- In re Uniloc USA, Inc., & Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., Hpe Portfolio Patent Litig.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2018