Dean v. Raytheon Co.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Dean v. Raytheon Co.

381 F. Supp. 2d 1379

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedAugust 10, 2005

DocketNo. MDL 1697

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 381 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (Dean v. Raytheon Co.) 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

Dean v. Raytheon Co., 381 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (jpml 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of two actions in the District of Massachusetts and one action in the Eastern District of Virginia. Colgan Air, Inc., moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia. All other parties to these actions oppose the motion.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In this docket containing just three actions pending in two districts, movant has failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket. Alternatives to [1380]*1380transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these three actions is denied.

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of two actions in the District of Massachusetts and one action in the Eastern District of Virginia. Colgan Air, Inc., moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia. All other parties to these actions oppose the motion.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In this docket containing just three actions pending in two districts, movant has failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket. Alternatives to [1380]*1380transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these three actions is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 F. Supp. 2d 1379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-v-raytheon-co-jpml-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack