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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT