Buesgens v. Brown

483 F. Supp. 2d 1357
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedApril 18, 2007
DocketNo. MDL-1800
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

Bluebook
Buesgens v. Brown, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (jpml 2007).

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

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

In Re Buesgens Litigation
483 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
483 F. Supp. 2d 1357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buesgens-v-brown-jpml-2007.