In Re Best Buy Co., Inc., Restocking Fee Sales Practices Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Best Buy Co., Inc., Restocking Fee Sales Practices Litigation

528 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93638, 2007 WL 4574055

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedDecember 14, 2007

DocketMDL 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 528 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (In Re Best Buy Co., Inc., Restocking Fee Sales Practices Litigation) 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 Best Buy Co., Inc., Restocking Fee Sales Practices Litigation, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93638, 2007 WL 4574055 (jpml 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*1365 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiff in the Northern District of Illinois Stein action has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Southern District of Florida. Defendants Best Buy Co., Inc., and Best Buy Stores, L.P. oppose the motion. This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two districts, one each in the Southern District of Florida and the Northern District of Illinois.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that Section 1407 centralization would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Inasmuch as this litigation involves only two actions, the proponents of centralization have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket at this time. Alternatives to transfer 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 two actions is denied.

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

*1365 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiff in the Northern District of Illinois Stein action has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Southern District of Florida. Defendants Best Buy Co., Inc., and Best Buy Stores, L.P. oppose the motion. This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two districts, one each in the Southern District of Florida and the Northern District of Illinois.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that Section 1407 centralization would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Inasmuch as this litigation involves only two actions, the proponents of centralization have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket at this time. Alternatives to transfer 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 two actions is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93638, 2007 WL 4574055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-best-buy-co-inc-restocking-fee-sales-practices-litigation-jpml-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack