Cerles v. Rhodia S.A.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Cerles v. Rhodia S.A.

398 F. Supp. 2d 1359

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedOctober 21, 2005

DocketNo. MDL 1714

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 398 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (Cerles v. Rhodia S.A.) 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

Cerles v. Rhodia S.A., 398 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (jpml 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

TRANSFER ORDER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of one action each pending in the District of New Jersey and the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff in the latter action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Southern District of New York.¹ Defendants² support the motion. No other party has responded.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Southern District of New York will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions are putative class actions that share factual questions arising from alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning the financial condition of Rho-dia. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including ones with respect to questions of class certification), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

Given the geographic dispersal of the parties and prospective witnesses, no district stands out as the focal point of this litigation. In concluding that the Southern District of New York is an appropriate forum for this docket, we observe that this district, where an action is already pending, provides an accessible, metropolitan location, the selection of which is not opposed by any responding party.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the action pending in the District of New Jersey is transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Deborah A. Batts for coordinated or consolidated [1361]*1361pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TRANSFER ORDER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of one action each pending in the District of New Jersey and the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff in the latter action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Southern District of New York.¹ Defendants² support the motion. No other party has responded.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Southern District of New York will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions are putative class actions that share factual questions arising from alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning the financial condition of Rho-dia. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including ones with respect to questions of class certification), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

Given the geographic dispersal of the parties and prospective witnesses, no district stands out as the focal point of this litigation. In concluding that the Southern District of New York is an appropriate forum for this docket, we observe that this district, where an action is already pending, provides an accessible, metropolitan location, the selection of which is not opposed by any responding party.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the action pending in the District of New Jersey is transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Deborah A. Batts for coordinated or consolidated [1361]*1361pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 F. Supp. 2d 1359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cerles-v-rhodia-sa-jpml-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack