In Re George Andrew Bratton Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re George Andrew Bratton Litigation

206 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11191

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedJune 17, 2002

DocketMDL No. 2972

StatusPublished

This text of 206 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (In Re George Andrew Bratton 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 George Andrew Bratton Litigation, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11191 (jpml 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions now pending in the Central District of California and Eastern District of California. Plaintiff in each action, George Andrew Bratton, moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Central District of California. Responding Central California defendants take no position on this motion.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that given the minimal number of actions pending in adjacent federal districts involved in this docket, Section 1407 centralization is not warranted. We point out that 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 Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions now pending in the Central District of California and Eastern District of California. Plaintiff in each action, George Andrew Bratton, moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Central District of California. Responding Central California defendants take no position on this motion.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that given the minimal number of actions pending in adjacent federal districts involved in this docket, Section 1407 centralization is not warranted. We point out that 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 Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

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)

206 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-george-andrew-bratton-litigation-jpml-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack