In Re Circuit City Stores, Inc., Restocking Fee

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Circuit City Stores, Inc., Restocking Fee

528 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93626, 2007 WL 4562910

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedDecember 14, 2007

DocketMDL 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 528 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (In Re Circuit City Stores, Inc., Restocking Fee) 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 Circuit City Stores, Inc., Restocking Fee, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93626, 2007 WL 4562910 (jpml 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiff in the Central District of California action has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Middle District of Florida or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York or the Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the Middle District of Florida action support the motion. Plaintiff in the Southern District of New York Alicea action and defendant Circuit City Stores, Inc. oppose the motion. The Alicea plaintiff alternatively requests that the Panel defer its decision until the Southern District of New York court rules on her motion to remand to state court.

This litigation currently consists of three actions listed on Schedule A and pending *1364 in three districts, one each in the Central District of California, the Middle District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York.

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 three 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 three actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 1900 — In re: Circuit City Stores, Inc., Restocking Fee Sales Practices Litigation

Central District of California Roxana Wilson v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., C.A. No. 2:07-5229

Middle District of Florida Kenneth Donnelly, et al. v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., C.A. No. 5:06-387

Southern District of New York Ada Alicea v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., C.A. No. 1:07-6123

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiff in the Central District of California action has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Middle District of Florida or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York or the Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the Middle District of Florida action support the motion. Plaintiff in the Southern District of New York Alicea action and defendant Circuit City Stores, Inc. oppose the motion. The Alicea plaintiff alternatively requests that the Panel defer its decision until the Southern District of New York court rules on her motion to remand to state court.

This litigation currently consists of three actions listed on Schedule A and pending *1364 in three districts, one each in the Central District of California, the Middle District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York.

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 three 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 three actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 1900 — In re: Circuit City Stores, Inc., Restocking Fee Sales Practices Litigation

Central District of California Roxana Wilson v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., C.A. No. 2:07-5229

Middle District of Florida Kenneth Donnelly, et al. v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., C.A. No. 5:06-387

Southern District of New York Ada Alicea v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., C.A. No. 1:07-6123

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93626, 2007 WL 4562910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-circuit-city-stores-inc-restocking-fee-jpml-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack