In re Cybil Fisher Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In re Cybil Fisher Litigation

987 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1213 WL 7, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174541

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedDecember 13, 2013

DocketMDL No. 2488

StatusPublished

This text of 987 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (In re Cybil Fisher 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 Cybil Fisher Litigation, 987 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1213 WL 7, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174541 (jpml 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel:

* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, petitioner in the four actions listed on the attached Schedule A moves to centralize the litigation in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.¹ Common defendant the United States of America opposes the motion.

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel:

* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, petitioner in the four actions listed on the attached Schedule A moves to centralize the litigation in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.¹ Common defendant the United States of America opposes the motion.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

987 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1213 WL 7, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cybil-fisher-litigation-jpml-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack