In Re Bank of America Fiduciary Accounts Lit.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Bank of America Fiduciary Accounts Lit.

435 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44826

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedJune 20, 2006

DocketMDL 1774

StatusPublished

This text of 435 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (In Re Bank of America Fiduciary Accounts Lit.) 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

In Re Bank of America Fiduciary Accounts Lit., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44826 (jpml 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN F. KEENAN, Acting Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two federal districts. 1 Before the Panel is a motion by plaintiffs in the now-dismissed Missouri action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, seeking centralization for pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiffs in the pending two actions support this Section 1407 motion. The New York plaintiff alternatively suggests the Southern District of New York as transferee district. Defendants 2 oppose centralization.

On 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. Given the minimal number of actions involved in this docket, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization is appropriate. See In re Scotch Whiskey, 299 F.Supp. 543, 544 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1969). Alternatives to Section 1407 transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings, or both. See, e.g., In re Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Treated Wood Products Liability Litigation, 188 F.Supp.2d 1380 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2002); 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 actions is denied.

1

. On May 26, 2006, another action, Ellen Jane Kutten, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., E.D. Missouri, C.A. No. 4:04-244, was dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the question of inclusion of this action in any multidistrict proceedings is presently moot.

2

. Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corp.; and Columbia Funds Series Trust f/k/a Nations Funds Trust and William C. Carmichael.

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN F. KEENAN, Acting Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two federal districts. 1 Before the Panel is a motion by plaintiffs in the now-dismissed Missouri action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, seeking centralization for pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiffs in the pending two actions support this Section 1407 motion. The New York plaintiff alternatively suggests the Southern District of New York as transferee district. Defendants 2 oppose centralization.

On 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. Given the minimal number of actions involved in this docket, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization is appropriate. See In re Scotch Whiskey, 299 F.Supp. 543, 544 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1969). Alternatives to Section 1407 transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings, or both. See, e.g., In re Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Treated Wood Products Liability Litigation, 188 F.Supp.2d 1380 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2002); 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 actions is denied.

1

. On May 26, 2006, another action, Ellen Jane Kutten, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., E.D. Missouri, C.A. No. 4:04-244, was dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the question of inclusion of this action in any multidistrict proceedings is presently moot.

2

. Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corp.; and Columbia Funds Series Trust f/k/a Nations Funds Trust and William C. Carmichael.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bank-of-america-fiduciary-accounts-lit-jpml-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack