Haft v. General Electric Company
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-00506
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Haft v. General Electric Company, Judge Woods consolidated two related oven-door class actions, directed a consolidated complaint, and denied two dismissal motions as moot.
The plaintiffs Asher Haft, John Fisher, and Cheryl Jones, the putative classes they sought to represent, and the defendants General Electric Company and Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. The cases were combined for further proceedings, but the order did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
Haft v. General Electric Company and Jones v. Haier U.S. Appliance Solutions, Inc. were putative class actions concerning allegedly defective oven glass doors. The plaintiffs asked the court to combine the cases.
The court granted the motion to consolidate because the cases involved similar claims and common questions of law and fact. It ordered the plaintiffs to file one consolidated complaint under the Haft docket and administratively closed the Jones case.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also denied as moot the pending motions to dismiss in both cases. The order did not decide whether the oven doors were defective or whether the plaintiffs’ claims would succeed.
The detailed version
- Haft v. General Electric Company · No. 1:21-cv-00506
- Gregory Woods
- May 23, 2022
Background
Asher Haft and John Fisher filed a putative class action asserting warranty-breach and related claims concerning allegedly defective glass doors on ovens manufactured and sold by Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. Cheryl Jones later filed a separate putative class action making similar claims against Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. The Jones case was transferred from the Middle District of Florida to the Southern District of New York.
Haft, Fisher, and Jones moved to consolidate the two cases. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may consolidate cases that involve a common question of law or fact. The court explained that consolidation can promote efficient case administration, reduce repetition and confusion, and speed resolution of common issues.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to consolidate. It found that the two cases asserted similar claims based on the same allegedly defective oven glass doors and therefore involved common questions of law and fact.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint within 14 days. The complaint was to be captioned “In re: Haier U.S. Appliance Sols., Inc.” and filed under Case No. 1:21-cv-00506-GHW. The defendant’s answer or other response was due within 30 days after service. The court also stated that no pre-motion conference was required before a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
Because a consolidated complaint was required, the court denied as moot the pending motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Haft case and denied as moot the pending motion to dismiss the complaint in the Jones case. The Clerk was directed to terminate the identified motions and administratively close Case No. 1:22-cv-4036-ALC. The order did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.