ILNews

Closing Indiana's largest MDL line

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The final case in the Bridgestone/Firestone multi-district litigation has come to a close in the Southern District of Indiana, putting an end to a line of litigation that began more than a decade ago.

On May 25, U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker dismissed Gwendolyn Scott, et. al. v. Bridgestone American Tire Operations, et al., No. 1:10-CV-5853, that fell under the MDL umbrella in the tires product liability litigation. During the life of this MDL, 853 individual cases were transferred to the court and 14,087 docket entries were made since Oct. 26, 2000.

The Bridgestone/Firestone group has been the largest MDL action in Indiana, arising from allegations that a design defect in Ford Explorer tires caused the treads to separate prematurely and lead to vehicle rollovers. Plaintiffs came from all over the United States and foreign countries. The Gwendolyn Scott case, received in January 2010, was the final case sent to the Southern District.

Another case – Gonzalez-Servin v. Ford Motor Company, et al, No. 11-1665 – remains before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The MDL was initially assigned to Judge Barker and Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields, then later saw involvement by Magistrates Jane Magnus-Stinson and Debra McVicker Lynch. The latter was appointed as special master on the cases Nov. 1, 2000, and eventually became the assigned magistrate after joining the bench in 2008.

Rehearing: "In the news, and onto the docket"  IL Feb. 2 - 15, 2011

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT