Class Action Defense Blog

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to District of New Jersey

Six class actions – two in Massachusetts and one each in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania – were filed against Staples alleging violations of state and federal labor laws; specifically, the class action complaints allege that Staples failed to pay its assistant, operations and/or sales managers overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and/or various state wage and hour statutes. In re Staples, Inc., Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 14, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of New Jersey or Massachusetts, id. No one opposed the motion; four groups of class action plaintiffs supported the selection of New Jersey, while plaintiffs in the other two class actions favored Connecticut. Id. In the end, all parties agreed on New Jersey as the appropriate transferee court, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the District of New Jersey was the appropriate transferee court because “(1) this choice is supported by all parties at least in the alternative, and (2) this district is already presiding over a similar action against Staples which is in its final stages.” Id.

Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Eastern District of California

Two class actions – one in Central District of California and one in the Eastern District of California – were filed against Payless ShoeSource alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Act; specifically, the class action complaints allege that Payless “requests and records customers’ personal identification information in violation of California Civil Code § 1747.08.” In re Payless ShoeSource, Inc., California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Eastern District of California; plaintiffs in the class actions did not respond to the motion, and defense attorneys represented that they supported the request. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the Eastern District of California was the appropriate transferee court because no party objects to that district and the first-filed class action is pending there. Id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Only One Group Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Eastern District of New York

Eight class actions – four in New Jersey, two in Illinois and one each in California and New York – were filed against Bayer and various other defendants challenging “Bayer’s marketing and sale of Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage or Bayer Women’s Low-Dose Aspirin Plus Calcium, or both.” In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 14, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Specifically, the class actions alleged “Bayer marketed these products without approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration and deceived the plaintiffs and putative class members with respect to the safety and efficacy of the products.” Id., at 2. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in three of the class actions filed motions with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the district courts in which their own class action lawsuits were pending; plaintiffs in the California class action opposed centralization until the district court had ruled on their motion to remand their class action to state court. Id., at 1. Defense attorneys for two Bayer entities supported centralization of all of the class actions, including the California class action, in either Illinois or New York, id. At oral argument, the moving parties supported centralization in the Eastern District of New York, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, id. The Panel further agreed that the Eastern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court, as it was supported by all parties and as Bayer is headquartered in New York “albeit in another federal district.” Id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Other Class Action Plaintiffs or by Common Defendants, and Transfers Actions to Southern District of New York

Six class actions – one in California and five in New York – were filed against Orleans Homebuilders and OHB Homes alleging violations of federal securities laws; specifically, the class action complaints “arise from a purported massive financial scandal involving common defendant Satyam Computer Services, Ltd. (Satyam), one of India’s largest information technology and outsourcing companies.” In re Satyam Computer Services, Ltd., Securities Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations underlying the class actions, “defendants deceived the investing public regarding Satyam’s business and finances, and thereby caused plaintiffs to purchase the company’s American Depositary Shares at artificially inflated prices.” Id. Plaintiffs in the California class action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; initially, plaintiffs sought centralization in California, but ultimately agreed to centralization in the Southern District of New York, where the other five class actions were pending. Id. Only one class action plaintiff opposed centralization, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, id. The Panel also agreed that the Southern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court because “Five of the six constituent actions, including the first-filed action, are already pending there, and the parties suggest that some discovery from accountants and banks may take place in the district.” Id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions, PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Plaintiffs in One of the Class Actions, and Transfers Actions to District of New Jersey

Two class actions – one in Connecticut and one in New Jersey – were filed against Aetna and affiliated entities, and other defendants (including Ingenix and its parent UnitedHealth Group), challenging Aetna’s “policies and practices for reimbursing its plan members’ visits to health care providers that are not part of the Aetna network,” that is, to “nonparticipating” or “out-of-network” providers. In re Aetna, Inc., Out-Of-Network "UCR" Rates Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 8, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Specifically, the class action complaints, filed by Aetna health plan members, alleged “that (1) the Ingenix database of billing information was flawed leading to lower reimbursement rates; and (2) Aetna improperly calculated the usual, customary and reasonable (‘UCR’) rates of reimbursement for out-of-network services based upon this data.” Id. Defense attorneys for Aetna filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in Connecticut, New Jersey or New York, but at oral argument limited its request to the district where the two class actions were already pending. Id. Plaintiffs in the New Jersey class action supported the motion and agreed on centralization in that district; plaintiffs in the Connecticut class action opposed centralization or, alternatively, argued for transfer to the District of Connecticut. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, finding that “these two actions involve complex common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407…will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” Id. The Panel transferred the class actions to the District of New Jersey because, while either district court would be appropriate, “(1) Judge Faith S. Hochberg has been presiding over the action before her since July 2007 and she is well-versed with the issues involved in this litigation; and (2) two other related actions with similar claims against Aetna are also pending before her.” Id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Supported by Common Class Action Defendants and by Vast Majority of Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Class Actions to Northern District of California

Twelve class actions – eleven in the Northern District of California and one in the Western District of Washington – were filed against Wal-Mart and Netflix alleging violations of antitrust laws; specifically, the class action complaints allege “defendants conspired to divide the online DVD rental market in violation of federal antitrust laws.” In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 10, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. (Forty-three (43) additional class action lawsuits were filed in various district courts, and were considered by the Court as potential tag-along class actions. Id. at n.1.) Plaintiffs in one of the California class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of California; plaintiffs in 35 of the class actions supported the motion, as did all defendants in the various class actions. Id. Plaintiffs in 9 of the potentially-related class actions supported centralization, but argued alternatively for coordination in various district courts in Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Puerto Rico, or West Virginia. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits (in part because it would “prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings…with respect to class certification”), and agreed that the Northern District of California was the appropriate transferee court. Id., at 1-2. The Judicial Panel explained in selection of the California district court as follows at page 2, “The vast majority of the actions are already pending in the Northern District of California before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Moreover, two of the defendants are headquartered in that district and, accordingly, relevant documents and witnesses are likely located there.” Accordingly, the Panel granted the motion and ordered all actions outside the district transferred to the Northern District of California, id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action on Behalf of Florida Citizens Against Florida Corporation, Removed to Federal Court under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Properly Remanded to State Court because Home State Exception to CAFA Jurisdiction Applies First Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action in Florida state court against Kash N’ Karry Food Stores (a chain of grocery stores in Florida) alleging “alleging that Kash N' Karry had failed to adopt adequate security measures to protect its customers' credit card information.” In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., 564 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2009) [Slip Opn., at 3]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, a computer hacker stole from defendant the credit and debit card information of approximately 1.6 million Kash N’ Karry customers, and limited the class action’s definition to Florida residents, id., at 3-4. Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation coordinated plaintiff’s class action for pretrial purposes with two dozen other class actions in the District of Maine. Id., at 4. The other 24 class actions had been filed against entities that were related to Kash N’ Karry; specifically, its sister corporation Hannaford Brothers, and their common parent company, Delhaize America. Id. Plaintiff moved to remand his class action to state court under the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction; the district court granted plaintiff’s motion and the First Circuit gave defendant leave to appeal. Id. The Circuit Court stated that this case “presents an issue of first impression for this circuit regarding the application of the home state exception to federal jurisdiction under [CAFA].” Id., at 2. Defense attorneys argued that the class action complaint had been drafted to defeat CAFA jurisdiction “in violation of congressional intent”; plaintiff responded that the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction applied and, accordingly, that the district court order remanding the class action to state court was correct. Id. The Circuit Court affirmed the remand of the class action to state court, holding that the class action complaint fell squarely within the home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction.

CAFA’s home state exception “requires a federal court to decline to exercise jurisdiction if at least two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the action was originally filed.” In re Hannaford, at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B)). The First Circuit observed that plaintiff’s class action complaint limits the scope of the class to Florida citizens, and is brought against a single corporation, Kash N’ Karry, which also is a Florida citizen. Id. The district court remanded the class action to state court on the basis of the home state exception, and the Circuit Court affirmed, rejecting defense attorney claims that “the application of CAFA's home state exception depends on a broader assessment of the claims brought by others who do not fall within the complaint's class definition or of the claims available to the class against other possible defendants.” Id.

Continue reading "CAFA Class Action Defense Cases–In re Hannaford Bros.: First Circuit Affirms Remand Of Class Action Holding Home State Exception To CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) Jurisdiction Applies" »

Posted In: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), Multidistrict Litigation, Removal & Remand, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Separate Requests for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Supported by Defendants, and Transfers Class Actions to Eastern District of New York

Eight class actions – four in New Jersey, two in Illinois and one each in California and New York – were filed against various Bayer defendants “arising from Bayer’s marketing and sale of Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage or Bayer Women’s Low-Dose Aspirin Plus Calcium, or both.” In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 14, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the class action complaints, “Bayer marketed these products without approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration and deceived the plaintiffs and putative class members with respect to the safety and efficacy of the products.” Id., at 2. Class action plaintiffs filed three separate motions with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Id., at 1. Plaintiffs in the New York class action sought centralization in the Eastern District of New York; plaintiffs in the four New Jersey class actions and the two Illinois class actions originally sought centralization in their respective jurisdictions, but at oral argument they, too, supported centralization in the Eastern District of New York. Id. Plaintiffs in the California class action requested that the Panel defer ruling on the motions until the district court ruled on their motion to remand their class action to state court; alternatively, they requested centralization in the Southern District of California. Id. Defendants Bayer and Bayer Healthcare supported centralization of the class actions (including the California class action), and recommended transfer either to the Southern District of Illinois or Eastern District of New York. Id.

The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, agreeing that centralization “will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification issues; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” In re Bayer, at 1-2. The Panel agreed further that the Eastern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court, particularly given its wide support. Id., at 2. Accordingly, the Judicial Panel ordered the various class actions transferred to the Eastern District of New York, id.

Posted In: Class Actions In The News, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Class Actions to District of New Jersey

Six class actions – two in Massachusetts, and one each in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania – were filed against Staples alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaints allege “that Staples assistant, operations and/or sales managers are entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or various state wage and hour statutes.” In re Staples, Inc., Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 14, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of New Jersey or, alternatively, in the District of Massachusetts; none of the class action plaintiffs opposed centralization, though plaintiffs in four of the class actions supported transfer to New Jersey while plaintiffs in the remaining class actions supported transfer to Connecticut. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the District of New Jersey was the appropriate transferee court “because (1) this choice is supported by all parties at least in the alternative, and (2) this district is already presiding over a similar action against Staples which is in its final stages.” Id. Accordingly, the Panel ordered all class actions outside of New Jersey transferred as requested by Staples, id., at 1-2.

Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Eastern District of California

Two class actions were filed in the Central and Eastern Districts of California against Payless ShoeSource alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act; specifically, the class action complaints allege that “Payless requests and records customers’ personal identification information in violation of California Civil Code § 1747.08.” In re Payless ShoeSource, Inc., California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; plaintiffs in both class actions reportedly supported the motion, though they did not respond to it. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, finding that centralization of the class actions “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.” Id. The Judicial Panel further agreed that the Eastern District of California was the appropriate transferee court, particularly as no party opposed centralization in that district. Id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, but Orders Class Actions Transferred to Eastern District of Wisconsin, Where none of the Class Actions had been Filed

Twenty-three (23) class actions were filed in 18 federal district courts against numerous defendants, including inter alia Sears, Roebuck and Co., Deere & Co., Kawasaki Motors, and The Kohler Co.; the class action complaints alleged “manufacturers of lawnmowers and/or lawnmower engines conspired to materially overstate and/or fraudulently advertise the horsepower produced by their lawnmower products.” In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing & Sales Prac. Litig. (No. II), ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. December 5, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1, 2]. An additional 16 class action lawsuits were filed that were treated as potential tag-along actions, id., at 1 n.2. Ten of the defendants filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in either the Southern or Northern District of Illinois; all responding parties supported centralization of the class actions, but variously sought transfer to Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, or Texas. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, id., at 1-2. However, the Panel not only rejected the transferee courts proposed by the moving or responding parties, but ordered all of the class action lawsuits transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Id., at 2. None of the class actions had been filed in that district, or even in that State, but the Judicial Panel concluded that, given the number of different districts in which the lawsuits were pending, “many districts would be an appropriate transferee forum” and that the Eastern District of Wisconsin had the capacity to oversee the litigation and was centrally located given that “[the] parties and witnesses are clustered in various Midwestern states.” Id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Sixteen (16) class actions – 13 in New York, and one each in California, Massachusetts and Minnesota – were filed against Primary Fund, The Reserve and various related Reserve entities, and other defendants, alleging “relief under various federal securities laws and/or common law or a shareholder suing derivatively on behalf of the Primary Fund.” In re The Reserve Fund Securities & Derivative Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 10, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of New York; plaintiff in the Minnesota class action opposed the motion, and plaintiff in the Massachusetts class action also opposed the motion and alternatively asked the Judicial Panel to delay ruling on the motion until after the district court had ruled on a pending motion to remand the class action to state court. Id. The Judicial Panel rejected plaintiffs’ objections and granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, explaining that (1) even if the Minnesota and Massachusetts class actions are “narrower” than the other class actions, pretrial coordination will serve the salutary purposes of Section 1407, and (2) plaintiff in the Massachusetts class action can file a motion for remand in the transferee court. Id., at 2. The Panel concluded that the actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization would “eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, including on the issue of class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id., at 1-2. The Panel also agreed that the Southern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court, id., at 1; 13 of the class actions were already there, and The Reserve is headquartered in New York, id., at 2. Accordingly, the Judicial Panel ordered the class actions outside of that district transferred there, id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Over Objection of Three Class Action Plaintiffs, Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of 20 Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (Excepting One Class Action from Centralization Order) and Transfers Class Actions to Western District of Tennessee

Twenty-one (21) class actions – 18 in the Western District of Tennessee, and one class action each in the Northern District of Alabama, the Southern District of Indiana and the Middle District of Tennessee – were filed against Regions Financial Corp. and various subsidiaries, and other defendants. In re Regions Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 12, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1 & n.1]. An additional 6 class actions (4 in the Western District of Tennessee and 2 in the Northern District of Alabama) were treated by the Judicial panel as potential tag-along class actions, id., at 1-2 n.2. Generally, the class actions were premised on the following set of common facts: Beginning in mid-2007, various Morgan Keegan proprietary investment funds suffered steep declines in value, which the class action complaints attribute to “the funds being overly concentrated in certain types of securities…and being heavily invested in thinly traded, illiquid and complex securities or securities for which there was no readily available market pricing.” Id., at 2. The class action complaints alleged that “defendants mismanaged, misrepresented, and omitted material facts regarding the nature, value, risk profile and investment practices concerning one or more of the funds.” Id.

Defense attorneys for several of the defendants filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Western District of Tennessee; plaintiffs in six of the class actions pending in that district supported the motion, as did PricewaterhouseCoopers. In re Regions, at 1. Further, plaintiffs in an additional 5 of the Western District of Tennessee class actions did not oppose the motion, id. Plaintiffs in three class actions opposed centralization, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, finding that “all actions except the Southern District of Indiana Eilenberg action involve sufficient common questions of fact, and that centralization of twenty actions under Section 1407 in the Western District of Tennessee will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” Id., at 2. The Eilenberg action, however, was excluded from the centralization order because, unlike the other class actions, it “alleges a single claim under the Indiana Securities Act, focusing on specific facts concerning the unsuitability of particular investment product for the particular purchaser – an 89 year old infirm and unsophisticated investor – and the potential fraudulent inducements made to her at the time of the sale.” Id. Accordingly, with the exception of Eilenberg, the class actions were ordered centralized in the Western District of Tennessee, id., at 3.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Over Objection of Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Central District of California

Eight class actions – three in California and one each in Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington and Wisconsin – were filed against Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC alleging that “geometry alignment defect that causes uneven and premature tire wear on model year 2005 and 2006 Land Rover LR3s.” In re Land Rover LR3 Tire Wear Products Liab. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 23, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. A related class action was filed in Connecticut, and the Judicial Panel treated that class action as a potential tag-along case, id., at 1 n.1. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Central District of California; all responding plaintiffs opposed centralization, and alternatively argued that the District of New Jersey was the appropriate transferee court. Id., at 1. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, finding this will “eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including those with respect to issues of class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id. The Panel agreed further that the Central District of California was the appropriate transferee court because “the first-filed and most procedurally advanced actions are pending there” and because that district court “has gained familiarity with this litigation by presiding over some of the actions since 2007.” Id., at 2.

NOTE: The Panel recognized, “This is a case in which defendant might perceive the MDL process as a means to advance its litigation interests, just as the recently filed actions may have arisen in part from the anticipated denial of the class motions in California.” In re Land Rover, at 2. However, the Judicial Panel explained at page 2, “Our decision is not based on such considerations.”

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Individual and Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Over Opposition of Majority of Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Southern District of New York

Seventeen (17) individual and class actions – nine in New York, five Arkansas, two California and one in Arkansas – were filed against Lehman Brothers and various other defendants alleging that defendants had made materially false and/or misleading statements that negatively impacted the value of Lehman Brothers securities. In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Securities & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Some of the class actions were “brought by securities holders seeking relief under the federal securities laws,” while other class actions were brought by “participants in Lehman Brothers’s retirement savings plans suing for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [(ERISA)].” Id., at 2. Additionally, the Judicial Panel was advised that five related class actions had been filed, and it treated these class actions as potential tag-along lawsuits. Id., at 1 n.2. Defense attorneys for 10 of the individual defendants filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) seeking centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of New York, where 8 of the New York class actions were pending (with the remaining New York class action pending in the Eastern District); this motion was supported by responding defendants. Id., at 1. Plaintiffs in four of the class actions (3 in the Southern District of New York and the one in the Eastern District of New York) supported centralization of the other lawsuits, but requested that their actions “be coordinated, rather than consolidated, with the other actions in this litigation, because these plaintiffs’ actions (1) have distinct legal causes of action with different burdens of pleading and proof or (2) involve different types of securities.” Id. Plaintiffs in eight of the actions opposed centralization, “arguing that (1) their actions do not share sufficient questions of fact with the other actions in this litigation, and/or (2) motions to remand their actions to state court are pending.” Id.

The Judicial Panel granted the motion for centralization, finding that the individual and class actions involve common questions of fact and that “all actions can be expected to focus on a significant number of common events, defendants, and/or witnesses.” In re Lehman Brothers, at 1-2. Accordingly, pretrial centralization “will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, including on the issue of class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id., at 2. The Panel rejected concerns the concerns of some plaintiffs that the MDL proceeding would be difficult to manage because some of the actions involve different types of securities or legal claims, finding that centralization will permit the parties to litigate the common issues “in a streamlined manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties” and that the transferee court may permit litigation involving “non-common issues” to proceed on a parallel track. Id. The Judicial Panel also determined that the Southern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court “because (1) eight of the seventeen actions are already pending there, and (2) Lehman Brothers is headquartered in New York City and accordingly parties, witnesses and documents may be found there.” Id. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the lawsuits centralized in the Southern District of New York, id., at 2-3.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions, PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions

Allegations in Class Action Complaint were Adequate to Defeat Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Class Action Pennsylvania Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action against various defendants, consisting of “certain United States manufacturers of high quality flat glass used for construction and architectural applications (‘Construction Flat Glass’)”; the class action complaint asserted that the defendants engaged in price fixing in violation of §1 of the Sherman Act. In re: Flat Glass Antitrust Litig. (II), ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (W.D. Pa February 11, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of construction flat glass in the United States, and alleged that defendants “agreed to raise and fix prices through a combination of collusive energy surcharges and price increases.” Id., at 2. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated 20 related cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 in the Western District of Pennsylvania, id.; the district court appointed co-lead counsel for the class action and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the class action. Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action: they argued that the class action “should be dismissed because the various allegations therein are insufficient under the pleading standard set forth above to infer the existence of an agreement or conspiracy to restrain trade.” Id., at 4. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the allegations in the class action were sufficient to “nudge over the line of sufficiency.” Id.

We do not discuss the court’s reasoning in detail as it is case-specific, see id., at 4-5. Suffice it to say that the district court concluded at page 5 that the class action adequately “alleged agreement/conspiracy that if true would make an antitrust conspiracy plausible.” Accordingly, it denied the motion to dismiss. Id., at 6.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Largely Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Southern District of New York

Nineteen (19) class actions – 15 in New York and one each in the District of Columbia, Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania – were filed against the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and numerous other defendants alleging that “Fannie Mae was undercapitalized during the relevant time period, and that defendants concealed this fact from investors in order to raise capital.” In re Fannie Mae Securities & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 11, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. Two additional class actions were filed in the District of Columbia and in Florida, and the Judicial Panel treated these as potential tag-along actions. Id., at 2 n.3. Defense attorneys for Fannie Mae, with the consent of the other class action defendants, filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of New York; plaintiffs in both class actions supported the motion. Id., at 1. Plaintiffs in the District of Columbia class action did not oppose the motion; plaintiff in the New Jersey class action asked the Judicial Panel to delay transfer of his class action until a decision had been made on motion to remand the class action to state court. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the Southern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court, particularly as 15 class actions were already pending in that court and because “many of the corporate defendants are headquartered in New York.” Id., at 2. The Panel further ruled that the transferee court could hear the motion for remand to state court, id. Accordingly, the Panel transferred the class actions to the Southern District of New York, id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Common Class Action Defendant, and Transfers Class Actions to District of New Jersey

Five class actions – one each in California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York – were filed against Chrysler arising out of an alleged defect in the 2.7 liter engine used in several Chrysler cars; specifically, the class actions alleged that design defects made the 2.7 liter engine “prone to the formation of oil sludge, which causes the engine to malfunction.” In re Chrysler LLC 2.7 Liter V-6 Engine Oil Sludge Products Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 10, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. An additional class action was filed in Massachusetts, and treated by the court as a potential tag-along action, id., at 1 n.2. Plaintiffs in the New Jersey class action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of New Jersey; defense attorneys opposed centralization, and argued alternatively that the class action should be centralized in Illinois. Id. The argued that the class actions do not involve “duplicative discovery” because “the proposed classes do not overlap,” that informal coordination of discovery can adequately address any risk of overlapping discovery, and that common plaintiffs’ counsel in four of the class actions “supports coordination among the parties as a superior method of streamlining discovery.” Id., at 1-2. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the District of New Jersey was the appropriate transferee court, id., at 1.

The Judicial Panel recognized that the five class actions seek certification of statewide classes under the laws of five different states, but discovery will still overlap. In re Chrysler, at 2. The Panel found that the class actions “involve common questions of fact,” and that centralization “will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id., at 1. Put simply, the class actions “are nearly identical in terms of the facts alleged, and discovery undoubtedly will overlap.” Id., at 2. Pretrial coordination “will enable one judge to streamline pretrial proceedings and make consistent rulings on discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and issues relating to experts.” Id. The different issues presented by class certification, then, do not affect the propriety of centralization; rather, “the transferee judge may find that, eventually, the just and efficient conduct of these actions would best be served by suggesting to the Panel that the Panel remand these actions to the transferor courts for class certification considerations.” Id. But at least for purposes of discovery, centralization was warranted and the District of New Jersey is the appropriate transferee court because the New Jersey class action has been pending longer than the other class actions. Id. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the class actions transferred to New Jersey. Id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Responding Class Action Plaintiffs, but Transfers Actions to Northern District of California

Three class actions – one each in California, Illinois and New York – were filed against Bank of America Investment Services, Inc.; Bank of America Securities, LLC; Bank of America Corp. (collectively “BofA”) alleging “that Bank of America entities and/or its employees made misrepresentations in the context of the sale of auction rate securities (ARS).” In re Bank of America Corp. Auction Rate Securities (ARS) Marketing Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 12, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Two additional class actions were filed in New York, and treated as potential tag-along matters, id., at 1 n.2. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of New York, id., at 1. Lead plaintiff in the California class action opposed the motion, or alternatively requested that the class actions be centralized in California; lead plaintiff in the Illinois class action also opposed centralization, or alternatively requested centralization of the class actions in Illinois. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, id., at 2, but determined that the Northern District of California was the appropriate transferee court, id., at 3.

In opposing centralization of the class actions, plaintiffs’ lawyers argued: “(1) the actions do not share sufficient questions of fact; (2) there are only a few actions involved in the litigation, making voluntary coordination among the parties preferable to formal centralization; and (3) centralization of the actions to which the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) applies with the Independence Tube action (to which, plaintiffs assert, the PSLRA does not apply) will slow the progress of the latter action.” In re BofA, at 1-2. The Judicial Panel disagreed, explaining at page 2, “All actions possess a common factual core regarding Bank of America’s role in selling ARS. In particular, plaintiffs in all actions allege that…Bank of America failed to disclose that (1) ARS were not cash alternatives similar to money market funds, and (2) the ARS sold by Bank of America were only liquid because, at the time of sale, Bank of America and other broker-dealers artificially supported and manipulated the market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability. Transfer of these related actions under Section 1407 will foster a pretrial program that: (1) allows pretrial proceedings with respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with pretrial proceedings on common issues, [citation]; and (2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a streamlined manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties.” The Panel selected the Northern District of California without analysis, id., at 2-3.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions, PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions

Faced with Three Motions for Centralization, Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Responding Class Action Plaintiffs and Defendants, and Transfers Class Actions to Northern District of Illinois

Sixteen (16) class actions – filed in federal courts in the District of Columbia, Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and Texas – were filed against various defendants alleging violations of federal antitrust laws; 15 additional and related class actions also were filed, and were treated as potential tag-along class actions. In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. December 3, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1 and n.1]. According to the class actions, the defendants “conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of text messaging services sold in the United States in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.” Id., at 2. Three separate motions were filed with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407: plaintiffs in two of the Illinois class actions sought centralization there or in New Jersey; plaintiffs in the Louisiana class action sought centralization there or in Ohio; plaintiffs in the District of Columbia class action sought centralization there. Id., at 1. All responding parties agreed that centralization was appropriate, and “variously support[ed] one or more of the suggested transferee districts or the following districts: the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Puerto Rico, or the Western District of Washington.” Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, and decided that the Northern District of Illinois was the appropriate transferee court because (1) 6 class actions were already pending in that district and (2) it “provides a relatively central forum for this nationwide litigation.” Id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Faced with Two Motions to Centralize Class Actions, Judicial Panel Grants Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees with Plaintiffs in Pennsylvania Class Actions that Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the Appropriate Forum for the Class Actions

Three class actions –two in Pennsylvania and one in Minnesota – were filed against various defendants alleging federal antitrust violations; 16 related class action lawsuits subsequently were filed (12 in Pennsylvania, 3 in Minnesota and one in New Jersey), which were treated as potential tag-along cases. In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. December 2, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1 and n.1]. Two separate motions were filed with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; plaintiff in the Minnesota class action sought centralization in that federal court; on the other hand, plaintiff in one of the Pennsylvania class actions, supported by plaintiffs in the remaining Pennsylvania class actions, sought centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Id. Defense attorneys for responding parties supported centralization in either the District of Minnesota or, alternatively, the Southern District of Indiana. Id. Finally, plaintiff in a potentially related class action pending in the New Jersey federal court argued that centralization in Minnesota was warranted but only as to those class actions “relating to processed egg products,” not as to class actions concerning “shell eggs,” id. The Judicial Panel agreed to centralize all of the class action lawsuits finding that they “share factual questions relating to allegations that defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of eggs and/or processed egg products sold in the United States in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.” Id. Accordingly, pretrial coordination would serve the purposes of Section 1407 in that it will “eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id., at 1-2. The Panel expressly rejected the claim that class actions related to shell eggs should be handled separately from class actions concerning egg products, id., at 2.

With respect to forum, the Judicial Panel acknowledged that either Minnesota or Pennsylvania would be appropriate transferee forums, but selected the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because 14 actions are already pending there, including the “broadest” of the class actions. Id., at 2. Accordingly, the Panel ordered all of the actions outside of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred to that forum, id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Faced with Two Motions to Centralize Class Actions, Judicial Panel Grants Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Agrees with Defendants that the Southern District of Texas is the Appropriate Forum for the Class Actions

Seven class actions –two in Massachusetts; and one each in Alabama, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey and Texas – were filed against various defendants including VistaPrint, Vertrue and Adaptive Marketing, alleging violations of the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In re VistaPrint Corp. Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. December 11, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Two separate motions were filed with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; plaintiffs in one of the Massachusetts class actions, supported by plaintiff in the other Massachusetts class action, sought central in the Massachusetts federal court; at oral argument it was asserted that plaintiffs in the remaining class actions supported this request. Id. Defense attorneys for Vertrue and Adaptive Marketing, on the other hand, argued for centralization of the class actions in the Southern District of Texas, and the VistaPrint defendants supported this request. Id. The Judicial Panel agreed to centralize the class action lawsuits: “All actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that (1) the Adaptive defendants improperly enrolled VistaPrint customers in online membership programs, a practice referred to as “cramming;” and (2) this practice caused unauthorized charges to be made on customers’ credit and debit accounts in violation of the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act and/or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.” Id. Centralization of the class actions would thus serve the purposes of Section 1407, “especially on the issue of class certification.” Id. With respect to forum, the Judicial Panel acknowledged that “either of the proposed districts would be an appropriate transferee forum,” but selected the Southern District of Texas, because “(1) the first-filed action is pending there, and (2) Adaptive Marketing has an office in Houston, Texas, and relevant documents and witnesses may be found there.” Id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Supported by Other Class Action Plaintiffs and by Common Defendant, and Transfers Class Actions to District of Minnesota

Three class actions – one each in California, Michigan and Minnesota – were filed against Northstar Education Finance alleging that “Northstar’s suspension of its bonus program, in which Northstar offered a credit to borrowers who were no more than 59 days late in making loan repayments, was a breach of contract.” In re Northstar Education Finance, Inc., Contract Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. December 3, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Plaintiffs in the Minnesota and Michigan class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; the Minnesota plaintiffs asked for centralization of the class actions in the District of Minnesota, and the Michigan plaintiffs asked for centralization of the class actions in the Eastern District of Michigan or, alternatively, in the District of Minnesota. Id. Defense attorneys and plaintiffs in the California class action supported the motion for centralization in the District of Minnesota. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits finding that “all actions are brought on behalf of overlapping putative nationwide classes of borrowers” and that “[c]entralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id. The Judicial Panel also agreed that the District of Minnesota was the appropriate transferee court because Northstar is headquartered there and because all parties support transfer there. Id. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the class actions centralized in the District of Minnesota. Id., at 1-2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Northern District of Ohio

Thirteen (13) class actions lawsuits – 12 in the Northern District of Ohio and 1 in the Southern District of Florida – were filed against National City and certain affiliates alleging violations of federal securities laws by issuing “materially false and misleading statements which had a negative impact in 2008 on National City’s stock”; the putative class actions were filed on behalf of three separate groups – “securities holders seeking relief under the federal securities laws, shareholders suing derivatively on behalf of National City [and] participants in National City’s retirement savings plans suing for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [(ERISA)].” In re National City Corp. Securities, Derivative & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. November 26, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Ohio. Id. Responding plaintiffs in the Ohio derivative and ERISA class actions supported the motion; however, the ERISA class action plaintiffs opposed coordination of their class actions with the securities fraud class actions. Id. Plaintiffs in the Florida class action opposed the motion, arguing that their lawsuit should remain in Florida because they had filed a motion to remand the class action to Florida state court, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize all of the class action lawsuits and agreed that the Northern District of Ohio was the appropriate transferee court. Id., at 1-2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by All Class Action Plaintiffs, but Limits Scope of Centralization Order to Only Five (5) of the Eight (8) Class Actions at Issue, and Transfers Actions to Northern District of Ohio rather than Illinois as Requested by Defense Attorneys

Eight class actions – four in Illinois, two in New Jersey, and one in Ohio and New York – were filed against various defendants, including Whirlpool and Sear, Roebuck, alleging products liability claims; specifically, the class action complaints alleged that “certain front-loading washing machines manufactured by Whirlpool and sold under the Whirlpool brand name contain design defects that cause the machines to fail to drain properly, thereby resulting in the creation of mold, mildew, and associated unpleasant odors.” In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. December 2, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Illinois; all responding plaintiffs opposed the motion (at least in the form proposed by defense attorneys). Id. The Judicial Panel separated the class actions into two groups – one group, consisting of five class actions, shared the factual issues summarized above, while the other group, consisting of the remaining three class actions, involved class actions that named only Sears as a defendant. Id., at 1-2. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits as to the five class actions, concluding that centralization “will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly with respect to class certification), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id. However, the Panel selected the Northern District of Ohio as the appropriate transferee court, id., at 2. In making this selection, the Panel observed that plaintiffs in one of the Illinois class actions and in the two New Jersey class actions supported centralization in the Northern District of Ohio, so long as only the five class actions forming “group one” were coordinated. Id., at 1. The Panel denied the motion as to the class actions against Sears only, see id., at 1-2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Supported by All Responding Parties including Other Class Action Plaintiffs and Countrywide Defendants, but Transfers Class Actions to Western District of Kentucky

Six class actions –three in California, two in Florida, and one in Missouri – were filed against Bank of America and various Countrywide entities, together with other defendants, alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. December 2, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1 and n.2.]. Specifically, the class action complaints alleged that Countrywide failed “to limit access to and/or adequately safeguard private customer information” in violation of the FCRA, id., at 2. Plaintiff in one of the Florida class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Western District of Missouri or the District of Kansas. Id., at 1. All responding parties, which included more than 20 of the 26 plaintiffs in related “tag-along” class action lawsuits, supported centralization, and while some of the class action plaintiffs requested transfer to California, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina or Ohio, the vast majority – including more than 20 plaintiffs tag-along class actions and the Countrywide defendants – supported transfer to the District of Kansas. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, but rejected each of the district requested by the parties. Id., at 2. The Judicial Panel concluded, “Given that this litigation involves 32 known actions pending throughout the United States, any number of districts would be an appropriate transferee forum.” Id. And without discussion or explanation, the Panel selected the Western District of Kentucky as the transferee court, id.

Posted In: FCRA Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Southern District of New York

Six class actions – three in California, and one each in Kansas, Missouri and New York – were filed against Time Warner and Time Warner Cable, and others, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In re Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. December 8, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of New York; plaintiffs in two of the California class actions and plaintiffs in the Kansas, Missouri and New York class action all supported the motion, but argued that the class actions should be centralized in the District of Kansas. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits because “All actions allege that Time Warner improperly tied and bundled the lease of cable boxes to the ability to obtain premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.” Id. The Panel also agreed with defense attorneys that the Southern District of New York would best serve as the appropriate transferee court, because “Time Warner is headquartered there, and relevant documents and witnesses will likely be located in that district.” Id. Accordingly, the Judicial Panel ordered all of the class actions transferred to the Southern District of New York, id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Claims Alleging DuPont knew but Failed to Disclose Health Risks Associated with use of Non-Stick Cookware Coatings (including Teflon) not Entitled to Class Action Treatment because Class Definition Failed and Membership in Proposed Class could not be Objectively Established Iowa Federal Court Holds

Thirteen class action lawsuits were filed against E.I. DuPont De Nemours concerning its production and marketing of Teflon non-stick cookware coatings; specifically, the class action complaints alleged that “DuPont made false, misleading and deceptive representations regarding the safety of its product.” In re Teflon Products Liab. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (S.D. Iowa December 5, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. In essence, the class action plaintiffs asserted that the non-stick coatings “can decompose at temperatures within the realm of ‘normal use,’ potentially releasing a synthetic chemical” that is harmful to humans and could even cause birth defects. Id., at 2. Ultimately, the Environmental Protection Agency brought claims against DuPont under the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act, which DuPont settled in 2005 by paying “‘the largest civil administrative penalty [the] EPA has ever obtained under any federal environmental statute.’” Id., at 2-3. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the class actions in the Southern District of Iowa pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, see id., at 1 n.2. According to the allegations underlying the class action, DuPont knew of these dangers prior to 1960, but failed to disclose them to consumers, id., at 3. Plaintiffs’ attorneys moved the district court to certify the litigation as a class action. Id. Defense attorneys argued against class action treatment, id., at 1. The district court determined that class action treatment was warranted and therefore granted plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.

After outlining the rules governing class action certification under Rule 23, see In re Teflon, at 5-7, the district court observed that there are two additional “implicit” requirements: “1) that the class definition is drafted to ensure that membership is ‘capable of ascertainment under some objective standard;’ and 2) that all class representatives are in fact members of the proposed class,” id., at 7 (citations omitted). The federal court began its analysis, then, with the definition of the class, which it noted “is at the heart of any decision” on class action treatment, id., at 8. Because several putative class representatives testified in deposition that they were uncertain whether the products they purchased in fact had been manufactured by DuPont, or that they mistakenly believed that all non-stick cookware coatings were manufactured by DuPont, the district court concluded that the class definition failed. See id., at 8-14. Additionally, the court could not conclude “that each proposed representative is in fact a member of the proposed class, or…sub-class” because “the vast majority of plaintiffs must rely on memory to establish crucial facts [which] will prevent the parties and the Court from ever being able to establish membership with objective certainty.” Id., at 14. Accordingly, it held that it “cannot in good conscience grant certification.” Id.

Continue reading "DuPont Class Action Defense Cases–In re Teflon: Iowa Federal Court Denies Class Action Treatment To False Advertising Class Action Against DuPont Alleging Failure To Disclose Health Risks Associated With Non-Stick Cookware Coatings" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, but Transfers Class Actions to Eastern District of Wisconsin

Eight class actions – one in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania – were filed against common defendants Velocity Express Corp., Velocity Express, Inc., and Velocity Express Leasing, Inc. (collectively “Velocity Express”), and others, alleging labor law violations; specifically, the class action complaints alleged that defendants misclassified package delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees. In re Velocity Express, Inc., Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. October 8, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. The several class action complaints had been filed in seven district courts – two in the Central District of California, and one each in the Northern District of California, the District of Connecticut, the Southern District of Florida, the Western District of New York, the Western District of North Carolina, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Id. Defense attorneys for Velocity Express filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, in the Southern District of Texas. Id. Plaintiffs in the three California class actions supported centralization but argued that the Central District of California was the transferee district. Id. Plaintiffs in each of the other five class actions, as well as the lone potential tag-along class action, also supported pretrial coordination but argued for the Eastern District of Wisconsin as the appropriate transferee district. Id.

The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits: The court recognized that “While it is possible there are certain regional differences in the application of work rules, whatever differences exist do not negate the many common factual issues. On balance, centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” In re Velocity Express, at 1. The Panel rejected the defense requests for transfer to either California or Texas, agreeing instead with those class action plaintiffs that argued for the Eastern District of Wisconsin as the transferee court. Id. The Judicial Panel reasoned, “Given the geographic dispersal of pending actions, as well as the nationwide business of Velocity Express, no particular district or region emerges as the focal point for this litigation. We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Wisconsin is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. It is a centrally located district with the time and resources to devote to this litigation.” Id. Accordingly, the Panel ordered all class actions pending outside of Wisconsin transferred to that district, id., at 2.

Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Texas but Excludes two Class Actions from the Scope of its Transfer Order

Four class actions – in the District of Arizona, the Southern District of Indiana, the Northern District of Mississippi and the Northern District of Texas – were filed against Indianapolis Life and others alleging In re Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. I.R.S. § 412(i) Plans Life Ins. Marketing Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. October 7, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Specifically, the class action complaints alleged claims “relating to (1) the design, marketing and sale of life insurance policies used by plaintiffs to fund defined benefit pension plans for their small businesses which were represented to be in compliance with U.S. Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) § 412(i), and (2) the alleged failure by defendants to disclose that the I.R.S. might deem these policies to be invalid tax shelters.” Id., at 2. Defense attorneys for common defendant Indianapolis Life and its related entities filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Texas as to the four class actions in which it was a defendant; certain class action defendants joined this motion, while other class action defendants simply did not oppose the motion. Id., at 1. Plaintiffs in the Texas class action and in the Arizona class action supported the motion for pretrial coordination but argued for the District of Arizona as the appropriate transferee court. Id. Plaintiffs in the Mississippi class action and the Indiana class action, on the other hand, opposed inclusion of their cases in any centralization order, id. Additionally, two defendants in the Arizona class action opposed the motion for pretrial coordination, id.

The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits involving Indianapolis Life, but agreed it would not promote the interests of justice to include the Mississippi class action or the Indiana class action within the scope of its order because of the “the advanced stage of pretrial proceedings.” In re Indianapolis Life, at 2. The Panel further concluded that the Northern District of Texas was the appropriate transferee court “because (1) the judge assigned to the action pending there has a relatively low caseload, and (2) this action is progressing well.” Id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Common Class Action Defendants or by Plaintiffs in New York Class Action, and Transfers Class Actions to Northern District of Oklahoma

Two class actions – one in Oklahoma and one in New York – were filed against SemGroup Energy Partners alleging violations of federal securities laws; specifically, the class action complaints alleged that defendants “made materially false and misleading statements which artificially inflated the price of SGLP common stock in violation of the federal securities laws” In re SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., Securities Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. October 10, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Plaintiffs in the Oklahoma class action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Oklahoma; plaintiffs in the New York class action supported the motion but argued alternatively for transfer of the class actions to the Southern District of New York. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the Northern District of Oklahoma was the appropriate transferee court, particularly as it was supported by all parties and because “SGLP, its general partner and affiliated individual defendants are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and parties, witnesses and documents may be found there.” Id., at 1-2. Accordingly, the Panel centralized the class actions in Oklahoma, id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Eastern District of Louisiana

Three class actions –in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Western District of Tennessee and the Eastern District of Texas – were filed against DirecTech Southwest alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act; specifically, the class action complaints allege defendant failed to pay its technicians overtime as required by the FLSA. In re DirecTech Southwest, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. October 8, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Eastern District of Louisiana; plaintiffs in all three class actions supported the motion. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the Eastern District of Louisiana was the appropriate transferee court “because the first-filed and most advanced action is pending there and this choice is supported by all responding parties.” Id.

Posted In: Employment Law Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Two Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Illinois Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Central District of California

Two putative nationwide class actions were filed in the Central District of California and the Northern District of Illinois against Toys “R” Us alleging violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA); specifically, the class action complaints allege that defendant printed “certain credit and debit card information on customer receipts” in violation of FACTA.” In re Toys "R" Us - Delaware, Inc., Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. October 9, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Central District of California; plaintiffs in California class action – which is “significantly more advanced” than the Illinois action – did not oppose the motion, but plaintiffs in the Illinois class action did oppose the motion. Id. The Illinois class action plaintiff argued in part that centralization was unnecessary because there are only two actions pending; the Judicial Panel, however, concluded, “Although only two actions are now pending, they are brought on behalf of nearly identical putative nationwide classes, and there is a risk of inconsistent rulings on class certification.” Id. Even though there were only two actions, centralization was appropriate under Section 1407 because “[it] will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id. Accordingly, the Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the Central District of California was the appropriate transferee court because the “first-filed action has been pending there for almost two years.” Id., at 1-2.

Posted In: Class Actions In The News, FCRA Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Private Injunctive Relief Unavailable Under Truth in Lending Act, so District Court in TILA Class Action Seeking such Relief Improperly Granted Class Action Treatment under Rule 23(b)(2) and Erred Further in Awarding $22 Million in Damages as “Restitution or Disgorgement” under Declaratory Judgment Act Eleventh Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a class action against Beneficial Florida, Inc. and numerous affiliates (the Bank) alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) in the disclosures made by the Bank in connection with a $2000 loan; the class action complaint alleged that the Bank violated TILA by listing the fee for non-filing insurance (NFI) in the wrong column on the disclosure form. Christ v. Beneficial Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. October 28, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. Specifically, the class action alleged that the Bank disclosed the NFI as an “amount charged” when it should have been disclosed as a “finance charge,” id., at 4. In part, plaintiff’s class action complaint sought damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and disgorgement, id., at 4-5. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the class action with other related class actions against the Bank in the Middle District of Alabama, and ultimately the Alabama federal court certified a nationwide class action against the Bank under Rule 23(b)(2), id., at 5-6, which authorizes class actions where a defendant acted “on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole,” FRCP Rule 23(b)(2). In certifying the class action, the district court held that “[i]njunctive and declaratory relief are available under TILA,” id., at 6 (citation omitted). The district court later granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff class “and awarded injunctive relief and over $22 million in restitution and disgorgement pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act.” Id., at 3. The Eleventh Circuit reversed.

The Eleventh Circuit primarily addressed whether “private injunctive relief” is available under TILA: it noted that TILA is silent on the issue, neither expressly authorizing such relief nor prohibiting it, and that the district court “inferred from TILA’s silence that TILA provides private injunctive relief.” Christ, at 8. Based on its detailed analysis, the Circuit Court disagreed. See id., at 8-12. The Eleventh Circuit then held that certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class action was inappropriate because the Declaratory Judgment Act, standing alone, would not support such an order. Id., at 12. The Court explained, “The relief sought under the Declaratory Judgment Act is essentially a declaration of liability under TILA, and can only ‘lay the basis for a damage award rather than injunctive relief.’” Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, because it held that TILA did not authorize private injunctive relief, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the class action certification order. Id.

Continue reading "TILA Class Action Defense Cases–Christ v. Beneficial: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Class Action Certification And Damage Award In Truth-In-Lending-Act Class Action Holding TILA Does Not Authorize Actions Seeking Private Injunctive Relief" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions, RESPA/TILA Class Actions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by any Responding Parties, and Transfers Actions to Western District of North Carolina

Three class actions – one in California, Illinois and North Carolina – were filed against LendingTree and other defendants alleging that LendingTree failed to “limit access to and/or adequately safeguard private customer information in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” In re Lending Tree, LLC, Customer Data Security Breach Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. October 7, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Plaintiff’s lawyer for the North Carolina class action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Western District of North Carolina; no responding party opposed centralization, but the parties could not agree on the appropriate transferee court. Id. Certain other plaintiffs, and defendants LendingTree and Home Loan Center supported the motion; plaintiffs in the Illinois and California class actions argued for transfer to the Central District of California. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, id., at 1-2. The Panel also agreed that the Western District of North Carolina was the appropriate transferee court “because (1) LendingTree is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, and parties, witnesses and documents may be found there, and (2) this district has the capacity to handle this docket and, in the past, has been underutilized as a transferee district.” Id., at 2.

Posted In: FCRA Class Actions, Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Opposed by Some Class Action Plaintiffs and Two Attorneys General, but Transfers Actions to Southern District of California

Seven class actions – three in the Central District of California, two in the Southern District of California, one in Illinois and one in Kentucky – were filed against Countrywide Financial Corp. and affiliated entities; the various class action complaints “aris[e] out of allegations that Countrywide engaged in predatory lending practices by (1) originating and/or servicing residential mortgages in an unlawful, unfair or deceptive fashion, (2) misrepresenting or concealing the terms, risk, or suitability of the loans; and/or (3) placing borrowers in loans that they could not afford.” In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Mortgage Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. October 14, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. Four related class actions were filed in Connecticut, Florida , Indiana and the West Virginia, and were treated as potential tag-along actions by the Judicial Panel. Id., at 1 n.2 Defense attorneys for Countrywide Bank, Countrywide Home Loans, and Bank of America filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Central District of California; plaintiffs in both class actions supported the motion. Id., at 1. The various class action plaintiffs generally agreed on centralization, but could not agree on an appropriate transferee court. Class action plaintiffs in one of the putative nationwide class actions pending in the Central District of California supported the defense motion, but plaintiffs in another class action pending in the Central District of California, as well as plaintiffs in the Kentucky tag-along class action, argued for centralization in the Western District of Kentucky. Id. Still other plaintiffs – including Attorneys General for California and Illinois – opposed centralization entirely. Id.

The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits. In re Countrywide Financial, at 2. The Panel explained at page 2, “Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, including on the issue of class certification in some actions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The sufficiency of class allegations is an overarching issue in the putative nationwide class actions in this MDL proceeding.” With respect to the argument of the Attorneys General that federal jurisdiction over their actions is improper and that their actions should be remanded to state court, the Judicial Panel concluded that “these motions can be presented to the transferee judge”; however, the Panel “urge[d] the transferee judge to consider them expeditiously.” Id., at 2. The Judicial Panel transferred the class actions to the Southern District of California, because “(1) two of the seven actions in this docket are pending in this district, (2) Countrywide’s principal place of business is in California, and parties, witnesses and documents may be found there, and (3) the Southern District of California has the capacity to handle this litigation.” Id., at 2-3.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions, RESPA/TILA Class Actions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Over Objection of Certain Class Action Plaintiffs and Defendants and Objection of Common Defendant, but Transfers Class Actions Back to Central District of California, Where Class Actions Originally had been Filed

Five nationwide class actions were filed in five different federal courts against common defendant Amgen and various other defendants; the class action lawsuits “concern[ed] Amgen’s marketing of its Epogen and Aranesp anemia drugs, and they also all involve alleged violations of California statutory law.” In re Epogen & Aranesp Off-Label Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 8, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Plaintiff’s lawyer in the Illinois class action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Illinois; plaintiffs in both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey class actions supported the motion. Id. The California class action plaintiffs opposed the motion, as did two defendants in the California class action. Id. Common defendant Amgen also opposed the motion, id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, concluding that centralization “will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly regarding class certification), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id. The Judicial Panel held, however, that the class actions should be transferred to the Central District of California rather than Illinois. Id., at 1-2. The Judicial Panel noted that “This is an unusual docket because the four actions pending outside the Central District of California were originally brought in that district and then transferred to their current respective districts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Nevertheless, we conclude that the transfer of these same cases back to the Central District of California is appropriate.” In re Epogen & Aranesp, at 1. The Court explained that this was not a conflict because “the considerations affecting transfer under Section 1404 are not the same as those affecting transfer under Section 1407,” id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Over Objection of Defense Attorneys, Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, but Agrees with Defendant that Class Actions should be Centralized in Western District of North Carolina

Nine class action lawsuits were filed against Family Dollar Stores alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); specifically, the class action complaints alleged that under the FLSA defendant’s store managers are entitled to overtime pay. In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Wage & Hour Employment Prac. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 8, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Six of the class actions were pending in the Western District of North Carolina; the three other class actions were pending in Florida, Tennessee and Texas. Id. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in five of the North Carolina class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Alabama; plaintiffs in the other class actions supported the motion. Id. Defense attorneys opposed pretrial coordination, and alternatively argued that the class action lawsuits should be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. Id. The Judicial Panel noted that five additional, related class action complaints had been filed against Family Dollar Stores in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and that it would treat these class actions as tag-along cases. Id., n.1. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, id. But the Panel rejected Alabama as a transferee court. Rather, the Judicial Panel agreed with defense attorneys to centralize the litigation in the Western District of North Carolina because “(1) six of the nine actions are already underway there, and (2) Family Dollar Stores, Inc., is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, and witnesses and documents will likely be found there.” Id., at 1-2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Class Action Plaintiffs, and Transfers Actions to Northern District of Illinois

Seven class actions were filed against defendants Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master, Inc. in six federal district courts – one in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania – arising out of the “design and manufacture of Aqua Dots” and/or challenging “the adequacy of the November 2007 voluntary recall of this product.” In re Aqua Dots Products Liab. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. April 9, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively in the Eastern District of Arkansas; all responding parties supported pretrial coordination though they recommended various competing districts as the appropriate transferee court. Id. At oral argument, all parties agreed on the Northern District of Illinois. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, explaining at page 1 that the lawsuits involved common questions of fact and that centralization “will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings–especially on the issue of class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id. The Judicial Panel also agreed that the Northern District of Illinois was the appropriate transferee court “because (1) the Illinois district is relatively conveniently located in relation to documents and witnesses located at Spin Master Ltd.’s Canadian headquarters, and (2) all parties now agree upon centralization in this district.” Id., at 2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Unopposed by Other Class Action Plaintiffs or Defendants, but Rejects Southern District of Florida in Favor of District of Puerto Rico as Appropriate Transferee Court

Five class actions – three in the Southern District of Florida, one in the Middle District of Florida and one in the District of Puerto Rico – were filed against Horizon Lines and others alleging “that defendants conspired to fix prices of cabotage services to and from Puerto Rico in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.” In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. August 13, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Lawyers for plaintiffs in one of the Southern District of Florida class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of Florida. Id. No responding party opposed pretrial coordination but the parties could not agree on an appropriate transferee court, arguing various for the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Florida, the Eastern District of Louisiana, or the District of Puerto Rico. Id. The Judicial Panel also was advised that 18 additional class actions had been filed – 10 in Puerto Rico, and four each in the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida – and the Panel treated these as tag-along cases. Id., at 1 n.1. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and, after noting that the District of Puerto Rico or the Southern or Middle Districts of Florida would be appropriate transferee courts, decided upon the District of Puerto Rico because 11 actions are pending in that district already and because centralization in that court will “achieve the dual benefits of convenience and of spreading the workload of multidistrict litigation cases..” Id., at 1-2.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions