Diamond Chemical Co. v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Diamond Chemical Co. v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV

187 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2647

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedFebruary 15, 2002

DocketNo. 1440

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (Diamond Chemical Co. v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV) 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

Diamond Chemical Co. v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, 187 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2647 (jpml 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[1382]*1382 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions pending, respectively, in the District of District of Columbia and the Middle District of Louisiana. Defendants ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc., and ATOFINA, S.A., move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Middle District of Louisiana. Responding defendants Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals LLC oppose the motion, as do plaintiffs in both actions.

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. Movants have failed to persuade us at this time that any common questions of fact- and law in this docket are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. We point out that alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings, or both. 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, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

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

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

[1382]*1382 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions pending, respectively, in the District of District of Columbia and the Middle District of Louisiana. Defendants ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc., and ATOFINA, S.A., move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Middle District of Louisiana. Responding defendants Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals LLC oppose the motion, as do plaintiffs in both actions.

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. Movants have failed to persuade us at this time that any common questions of fact- and law in this docket are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. We point out that alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings, or both. 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, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diamond-chemical-co-v-akzo-nobel-chemicals-bv-jpml-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack