In Re Georgeson Shareholder Communications, Inc.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Georgeson Shareholder Communications, Inc.

277 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14183, 2003 WL 21960677

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedAugust 11, 2003

Docket1548

StatusPublished

This text of 277 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (In Re Georgeson Shareholder Communications, Inc.) 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 Georgeson Shareholder Communications, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14183, 2003 WL 21960677 (jpml 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of four actions pending in two districts as follows: three actions in the Southern District of New York, and one action in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff in the Illinois action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. All responding parties oppose transfer. They are: i) common defendants Georgeson Shareholder Communications Inc. and Georgeson Shareholders Securities Corp. (collectively, Georgeson); ii) AT & T Corp. (the co-defendant in the Illinois action and in two of the three New York actions); iii) Vodafone Group PLC (the codefendant in the third New York action); and iv) Allan H. Starr (the plaintiff in two of the three New York actions). If the Panel orders centralization over their objections, then the Georgeson defendants, AT & T and plaintiff Starr would support selection of the Southern District of New York as transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movants have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law in this docket are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. *1373 We point out that 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, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these four actions is denied.

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of four actions pending in two districts as follows: three actions in the Southern District of New York, and one action in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff in the Illinois action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. All responding parties oppose transfer. They are: i) common defendants Georgeson Shareholder Communications Inc. and Georgeson Shareholders Securities Corp. (collectively, Georgeson); ii) AT & T Corp. (the co-defendant in the Illinois action and in two of the three New York actions); iii) Vodafone Group PLC (the codefendant in the third New York action); and iv) Allan H. Starr (the plaintiff in two of the three New York actions). If the Panel orders centralization over their objections, then the Georgeson defendants, AT & T and plaintiff Starr would support selection of the Southern District of New York as transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movants have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law in this docket are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. *1373 We point out that 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, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these four actions is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14183, 2003 WL 21960677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-georgeson-shareholder-communications-inc-jpml-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack