In re Cybil Fisher Litigation
Opinion
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that Section 1407 centralization would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions in this litigation all involve efforts by petitioner to quash third-party summonses issued in connection with an Internal Revenue Services investigation. Actions such as these are generally summary in nature, see, e.g., Robert v. United States, 364 F.3d 988, 999 (8th Cir.2004), and movant has not convinced us that Section 1407 centralization is warranted. See In re: James D. Jordan IRS Summons Litig., 802 F.Supp.2d 1374 (J.P.M.L.2011); In re: Crystal Poole IRS Summons Litig., 763 F.Supp.2d 1371 (J.P.M.L.2011); In re: Good Karma, LLC, et al., IRS Summons Litig., 528 F.Supp.2d 1361 (J.P.M.L.2007).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the actions listed on Schedule A is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2488 — IN RE: CYBIL FISHER LITIGATION
District of Arizona
Cybil Fisher v. United States of America, et al., C.A. No. 2:13-00056
Southern District of Indiana
Cybil Fisher v. United States of America, et al., C.A. No. 1:13-00075
[1377]*1377 Northern District of Texas
Cybil Fisher v. United States of America, et al., C.A. No. 3:13-00085
Western District of Wisconsin
Cybil Fisher v. United States of America, et al., C.A. No. 3:13-00013
Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
987 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (In re Cybil Fisher Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.