IN RE: Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: RUST-OLEUM RESTORE MARKETING, MDL No. 2602
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: Common defendant Rust-Oleum Corporation moves under 28 U.S.C.*
§ 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district. This litigation currently consists of five actions
pending in five districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been1
notified of a related action in an additional district. All plaintiffs and co-defendants in the actions2 3
support or consent to centralization in the Northern District of Illinois.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share
factual questions arising out of allegations that the deck and concrete resurfacing paint products
manufactured and sold by the Rust-Oleum Corporation under the Restore brand name are defective
because they allegedly bubble, flake, chip, peel, or otherwise degrade prematurely, contrary to the
representations in defendant’s marketing, labeling, and product warranty. Plaintiffs in all actions
further allege that defendants knew or should have known of the purported defects. The common
questions of fact will include the design, manufacture, and testing of Restore products; the
representations in the products’ marketing and labeling; Rust-Oleum’s policies and practices with
respect to the warranties; and the measure of damages. Additionally, all actions are on behalf of
overlapping putative nationwide and statewide classes of Restore consumers.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. Centralization also is consistent with the Panel’s decisions ordering centralization
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.*
There were six actions listed on defendant’s motion for centralization, but one action in1
the Northern District of Illinois (Shogren) was terminated in November 2014, following its
consolidation with the McCain action in that district.
This and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),2
7.1 and 7.2.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and The Home Depot, Inc.3
Case MDL No. 2602 Document 43 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 3

-2-
of actions relating to allegedly defective building products in similar circumstances. See, e.g., In re:
GAF Elk Cross Timbers Decking Mktg., Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., — F. Supp. 3d —,
2014 WL 7006714, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 12, 2014) (centralizing six putative class actions that
involved common questions of fact related to allegedly defective decking products); In re: Building
Materials Corp. of Am. Asphalt Roofing Shingle Prods. Liab. Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (J.P.M.L.
2011) (centralizing five putative class actions that involved common questions of fact relating to
allegedly defective roofing shingles).
We conclude that the Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. This district, which has the unanimous support of all plaintiffs and defendants, provides
a geographically central forum for this nationwide litigation that will be convenient and accessible
for the parties and witnesses. Common defendant Rust-Oleum has its corporate headquarters there,
indicating that relevant documents and witnesses likely will be located there. Additionally, the first-
filed and most advanced action is pending in this district. Judge Amy St. Eve is an experienced
transferee judge, and we are confident she will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Northern District of Illinois are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Amy St. Eve for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the action pending there.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor
Catherine D. Perry
Case MDL No. 2602 Document 43 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 3

IN RE: RUST-OLEUM RESTORE MARKETING, MDL No. 2602
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
SCHEDULE A
Northern District of Illinois
MCCAIN, ET AL. v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-04852
District of Maryland
WEBBER, ET AL. v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02248
Southern District of New York
FERNANDEZ v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 7:14-08857
Eastern District of North Carolina
LEONARD, ET AL. v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, C.A. No. 7:14-00259
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
CADY, ET AL. v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, C.A. No. 5:14-06156
Case MDL No. 2602 Document 43 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 3