Class Action Defense Blog

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407and Transfers Actions to District of Maryland

Four (4) class action lawsuits were filed in Arizona, Florida, Illinois and New York against various defendants, including Michelin North America and American Honda Motor relating to the PAX “run-flat” tire system manufactured by Michelin and installed in certain Hondas and Acuras sold in the United States. In re Michelin North Am., Inc. PAX Sys. Marketing & Sales Prac. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 15, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys for Michelin filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class action litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of Maryland; defense attorneys for Honda supported the motion. Id. All plaintiffs agreed that pretrial coordination was appropriate, but they argued for transfer to the Northern District of Illinois. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, concluding that this “will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id. The Panel also agreed with defense attorneys that the District of Maryland was the appropriate transferee court, noting that “the wave of putative statewide class action lawsuits relating to the PAX System began with an action removed to the District of Maryland” and that the Maryland district court judge has “had an opportunity to familiarize himself with issues in this litigation.” 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 and Transfers Actions to Western District of Washington

Seven (7) class action lawsuits (5 in Washington and 2 in New York) were filed against various defendants, including Washington Mutual, “arising from alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning WaMu’s financial condition with respect to its subprime home loan portfolio.” In re Washington Mutual, Inc., Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 21, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys for common defendant Washington Mutual filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class action litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Western District of Washington, where five class actions already were pending; no party opposed pretrial coordination, but plaintiffs’ lawyers in the New York class actions argued for that district as the transferee court. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed with the defense that the Western District of Washington was the appropriate transferee court because most of the actions were pending there and because WaMu is headquartered in Seattle. Id., at 1-2.

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

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of FACTA Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, and Agrees with Defense Recommendation of Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the Transferee Court

Four class action lawsuits were filed against OSI Restaurant Partners (OSI) alleging violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) based on OSI’s failure to delete certain information from customer credit and debit card receipts. The class actions were pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (two), and the Western District of Pennsylvania and Northern District of Illinois (one each). In re OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 20, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; all parties agreed that pretrial coordination was appropriate, but plaintiffs’ lawyers in two of the class actions argued that the Western District of Pennsylvania was the appropriate transferee court. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion for centralization, but agreed with defense attorneys that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was the appropriate transferee court. Id.

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

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff Request, over Defense Objection, for Pretrial Coordination of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, but Transfers Class Actions to Eastern District of Missouri

Four class action lawsuits (2 in Colorado and 1 each in Florida and Missouri), each of which were filed as putative nationwide class actions, were filed against various Aurora Dairy Corp. alleging “Aurora misled them into believing that the milk they purchased was ‘organic’ or ‘USDA organic’ when in fact the milk failed to meet organic standards.” In re Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Marketing & Sales Prac. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 20, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Plaintiffs in one of the Colorado class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of Colorado, id. Defense attorneys for common defendant Aurora opposed pretrial coordination, but alternatively supported Colorado as the transferee court; other plaintiffs also supported Colorado as the transferee court, but plaintiffs in the Missouri action supported centralization in that district. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, easily concluding that this will promote efficient handling of the litigation, id. In so holding, the Panel rejected defense arguments that centralization was unnecessary because “voluntary alternatives to Section 1407 are superior,” id., at 2. But the Judicial Panel selected the Easter District of Missouri as the transferee court, explaining that it was home to the first-filed class action and that “[g]iven the geographic dispersal of the constituent actions and the potential tag-along actions, the Eastern District of Missouri offers a relatively convenient forum for this litigation.” Id

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, and Accepts Defense Recommendation that Lawsuits be Transferred to the Southern District of New York

Four individual and class action lawsuits (two in New York, one in Tennessee and one in Texas) were filed against PepsiCo and Pepsi Bottling Group (Pepsi) arising “from allegations that Pepsi misled consumers of its Aquafina bottled water into believing that the water source of Aquafina was something different from and better than tap water.” In re PepsiCo, Inc., Bottled Water Marketing & Sales Prac. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 14, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of New York; the motion was unopposed. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion for centralization, and agreed that the Southern District of New York was an appropriate transferee court; accordingly, it ordered the class actions pending outside that district transferred to New York. 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, but Rejects Defense Recommendation that Class Actions be Transferred to District of Columbia

Six class action lawsuits were filed against various defendants, including Chiquita Brands International and Chiquita Fresh North America (Chiquita), as well as current and former officers and directors of Chiquita Brands. The lawsuits fell into two categories: two shareholder derivative class action suits, filed in the District of Columbia and Ohio, and four class action suits under the Alien Tort Statute, filed in the District of Columbia, Florida, New Jersey and New York. In re Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., Alien Tort Statute & Shareholders Derivative Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 20, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys for Chiquita filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of the District of Columbia; plaintiffs’ lawyers in all other class actions opposed the motion. Id. Plaintiffs also argued that if the Panel granted pretrial coordination, then the cases should be transferred to district in which their action already was pending – viz., Florida, New York or Ohio. Id. Even though the class action complaints sought different relief under different theories, the Judicial Panel granted the motion for centralization: “All of these actions arise from allegations that Chiquita provided financial support to the Autodefensas Unidas de Columbia (AUC), a Colombian right-wing paramilitary organization engaged in an armed struggle against leftist guerilla groups in various parts of Colombia, including those where Chiquita had banana-producing operations.” Id. The Panel therefore concluded that pretrial coordination was warranted as it would “eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the recourses of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id., at 2. The Judicial Panel rejected plaintiffs’ concerns that the actions contained “non-common issues,” explaining that the transferee court could address those issues. Id. The Panel agreed, however, that the class actions should be transferred to the Southern District of Florida, rather than the District of the District of Columbia, “because the action there appears to be somewhat further than, or as advanced as, the other actions and the district is closer to Colombia, where many of the events that bear on this litigation took place,” id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiffs’ Request for Pretrial Coordination of 24 Class Action and Individual Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, but Concludes that Northern District of Ohio, rather than Southern District of Ohio, was Appropriate Transferee Court

Twenty-four class action lawsuits were filed in 13 different districts against various defendants, including General Electric, Bayer Healthcare, Tyco and Bracco Diagnostics, “arising out of the allegation that gadolinium based contrast dyes may cause nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with impaired renal function.” In re Gadolinium Contrast Dyes Prods. Liab. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 27, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. Lawyers for plaintiffs’ in 12 of the class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of Ohio; attorneys for a significant portion of the defense group supported pretrial coordination but argued that the Northern District of Ohio was the appropriate transferee court. Id., at 1. Defense attorneys for the Bracco defendants opposed centralization, arguing that “(1) the actions do not share sufficient questions of fact because each of the contrast agents is chemically and pharmacologically different; (2) because of the unique properties of each contrast agent, a global MDL will impinge upon the due process rights of the separate defendant companies; (3) when each defendant group is considered separately, there are too few actions to warrant MDL treatment for any claims other than those involving the GE defendants; and (4) alternatives to centralization are available and sufficient to coordinate the small number of claims involving Bracco and the Tyco and Bayer defendants.” Id., at 2. The Judicial Panel disagreed, holding that the efficiencies sought to be achieved by Section 1407 warranted pretrial coordination and explaining that the district court will be able to appropriately direct the proceedings. Id., at 2-3. The Panel also agreed with the defense request to transfer the class actions to the Northern District of Ohio, id., at 3.

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, but Decides on District of Minnesota as Transferee Court from among the Nine Districts Recommended by Various Parties

Twenty-seven individual and class action lawsuits, followed by 60 related “tag-along” individual and class action filings, were brought against Medtronic and others arising out of allegations that the implantation of Sprint Fidelis leads in defibrillators caused injuries. In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads Prod. Liab. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 21, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Plaintiffs’ lawyers in four of the class action cases filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; while no party opposed the motion, various parties alternatively argued over (9) districts as the appropriate transferee court. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion for pretrial coordination of the class action lawsuits, and selected the District of Minnesota as the transferee court because Medtronic is headquartered in that district so “relevant discovery may be found there” and because the district is “centrally located.” Id

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Plaintiff’s Unopposed Request for Pretrial Coordination of 3 Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Transfers Class Actions to the District of Nebraska

Three class action lawsuits (2 in Illinois and 1 in Nebraska) were filed against General Motors and Saturn Corp. asserting products liability claims based on “allegations that certain Saturn vehicles have defective metal timing chains and oiler nozzles.” In re Saturn L-Series Timing Chain Products Liab. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. February 19, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. (For the convenience of the reader, a copy of the one of the class action complaints may be found here.) Plaintiff’s lawyer in one of the class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of Nebraska; no party responded to the motion. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed with the moving plaintiff defense that the District of Nebraska was an appropriate transferee forum “because the first-filed action was brought there and it is movant’s unopposed choice.” Id. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the Illinois class actions to be transferred to Nebraska, id.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions

Judicial Panel Grants Defense Request, Opposed by Plaintiffs, for Pretrial Coordination of 4 Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, but Transfers Actions to Eastern District of Tennessee

Four class action lawsuits, 2 in the Middle District of Tennessee and 2 in the Eastern District of Tennessee, were filed against various defendants alleging antitrust violations for failing to “compete for the purchase of raw Grade A milk produced, marketed and processed in the Southeast United States.” In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. January 7, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys in all four class actions moved the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for centralization of the class action litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Middle District of Tennessee. Id. Plaintiffs in the class actions pending in the Middle District of Tennessee supported the defense motion, as did plaintiffs for one of the class actions pending in the Eastern District of Tennessee, id. Plaintiff’s lawyer in the other Eastern District class action opposed pretrial coordination, and argued alternatively for transfer to the Eastern District. Id. The Judicial Panel rejected the argument that “discovery will likely be straightforward” so centralization was unnecessary, id., at 1-2. And while the Panel supported all voluntary efforts to coordinate the various class actions, this did not defeat the motion, id., at 2. But even though the Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, and though it agreed that either district court would be workable as a transferee court, it noted that there were “[v]arious conflict and caseload concerns within the Middle District [that] made transfer there difficult.” Id. Accordingly, it granted the defense motion and transferred the class action litigation to the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Posted In: Multidistrict Litigation, Class Action Court Decisions