Gosling v. Hungry MacHine, Inc

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 29, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-1532
• Status: Published

Opinion

Case N|DL No. 2254 Document 36 Fi|ed 08/22/ll Page 1 of 3

R UB 2 9 2011 UNITED sTATEs .iiii)iciAL PANEL ¢[§"’,'('/j/R on lvoarHs/q,g D}§. D/srn/ci',`j~'('f,j/WG MULT[MSTRICT LITIGATIoN CAL/Fo§~,,,

1N RE= LiviNcsociAL MARKET1NG ANi) sALEs PRAcncEs Li"ricA"rioN MDL No. 2254

TRANSFER oRDER dr \\IZCM 4 _ ”\YA'

Bef0re the Panel:° Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l407, common defendant Hungry Machine, Inc. d/b/a LivingSocial (LivingSocial) moves for centralized pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the District of the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs in all five actions, as listed on Schedule A,‘ support the motion. Retailer defendant Jack’s Canoes & Kayaks, LLC d/b/a/Jacl<’s Boathouse , a defendant in only the District of Columbia action, did not respond to the motion.

On the basis of the papers iiled and the hearing session held, we fmd that these five actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions involve common factual questions regarding LivingSocial’s sale of gift certificates/vouchers with allegedly improper expiration dates and other objectionable provisions (e.g., requirements that gift certiiicates be used in a single transaction, that cash refunds will not be made for unused portions, and not more than one gift certificate can be redeemed at one tirne). Plaintiffs contend that LivingSocial and, in the District of Columbia action, the retailer defendant’s sale of the gift certificates/vouchers violate the federal Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act as incorporated in the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, as well as state consumer protection laws. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

We have selected the District of the District of Columbia, which all parties agree is the most appropriate forum, as the transferee district for this litigation. LivingSocial is headquartered in the District of Columbia and, accordingly, the majority of relevant documents and witnesses are located there.

° Judges John G. Heyburn II, Paul J. Barbadoro, and Marjorie O. Rendell took no part inthe decision of this matter.

1 LivingSocial has notified the Panel of one related action pending in District of Minnesota. This action and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1. l(h), 7.1 and 7.2.

Case I\/|DL No. 2254 Document 36 Fi|ed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 3

_g_

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the District of the District of Columbia are transferred to the District of the District of Columbia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Ellen Segal Huvelle for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action listed on Schedule A and

pending iri that district.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

NIx/,»<»» ii~.m¢\,fz_ K%alryn H. vrarii

Acting Chairman

W. Roya1Furgeson, Jr. Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Barbara S. Jones

Case |\/|DL No. 2254 Document 36 Fi|ed 08/22/ll

IN RE: LIVINGSOCIAL MARKE'I`ING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Northem District of California

Sarah Gosling v. Hungry Machine, Inc., C.A. No. 3:ll-02094 Southem District of California

Kimberly Pullman v. Hungry Machine, Inc., C.A. No. 3:11-00846 District of District of Columbia

Melissa Forshey v. LivingSocial, Inc., et al., C.A. No. l:l l-00745

Southem District of Florida

Mandy Miller v. LivingSocial, C.A. No. 0:ll-605l9

Western District of washington

Dawn Abbott, et al. v. LivingSocial, Inc., C.A. No. 2:ll-00253

Page 3 of 3

MDL No. 2254