In re HealthExtras Insurance Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation
Opinion
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in six actions pending in the Central District of California, the Northern District of Georgia, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the District of South Carolina, and the Northern District of Texas move to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of North Carolina.1 The litigation consists of those six actions, which are listed on the attached Schedule A.2
All responding defendants oppose centralization. Most defendants (collectively, HealthExtras) joined in a single response in opposition,3 while Stonebridge Life Insurance Company (Stonebridge), which is a defendant in only the Northern District of Texas action, filed a separate brief. If the Panel orders centralization over defendants’ objections, then the HealthExtras defendants argue for selection of either the Northern District of Texas or the Northern District of Georgia as transferee district, while Stonebridge argues for selection of the Northern District of Texas.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Although these six actions do share certain factual issues regarding the sales and marketing of disability insurance policies to holders of various credit cards, the key issue in all cases is legal in nature — specifically, whether these policies were issued to an eligible group or association, as defined by the laws and regulations of the relevant state.4 [1377]*1377Moreover, that legal issue itself is not a common one. The question in each case is whether the subject policies were issued in compliance with the law of the state in which that particular case was brought.5 Whether the subject policies in the District of New Jersey action were issued in conformance with New Jersey law, for example, has no bearing on whether the subject policies in the Northern District of Texas action were issued in conformance with Texas law.6 To the extent that discovery in these actions .may overlap, informal coordination appears practicable, especially given that all plaintiffs are represented by the same two law firms.7
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2544 — IN RE: HEALTHEXTRAS INSURANCE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Central District of California
ARIE WAISERMAN v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH PA ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00667
Northern District of Georgia
WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00309
District of New Jersey
GIERCYK v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA ET AL., C.A. No. 2:13-06272
Eastern District of North Carolina
PETRUZZO v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:12-00113
District of South Carolina
WILLIAMS v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH PA ET AL., C.A. No. 6:14-00870
Northern District of Texas
WALKER, ET AL. v. STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:13-04189
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
24 F. Supp. 3d 1376 (In re HealthExtras Insurance Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.