Buesgens v. Brown
This text of 483 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (Buesgens v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
This litigation consists of two actions pending in two federal districts. Before the Panel is a motion by the sole plaintiff, pro se, in both actions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, seeking centralization of the actions for pretrial proceedings in the District of the District of Columbia or in any federal district court other than the Western District of Texas that is outside the Fifth Circuit.1 The Federal Government2 and Falcon Ridge3 defendants oppose the motion.
[1358]*1358On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs allegations, spawned by his employment and housing situation, can be fairly and expeditiously resolved elsewhere without any further Panel involvement.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these actions is denied.4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
483 F. Supp. 2d 1357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buesgens-v-brown-jpml-2007.