In Re Lawrence moore/international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Lawrence moore/international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Litigation

198 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6761, 2002 WL 661732

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedApril 15, 2002

Docket1449

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 F. Supp. 2d 1382 (In Re Lawrence moore/international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 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 Lawrence moore/international Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Litigation, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6761, 2002 WL 661732 (jpml 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions 1 pending, respectively, in the Northern District of California and Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiff Lawrence Moore moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in a single federal court. All responding defendants oppose the motion.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that given the minimal number of actions involved in this docket, Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movant has failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact in this docket are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. We point out that alternatives to 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Michigan defendants’ request for fees and costs is denied.

1

. A third action — Lawrence Moore v. Electrical Workers Local 58, et al., E.D. Michigan, C.A. No. 2:01-72222 — was recently dismissed. Accordingly, the question of inclusion of this action in any Section 1407 proceedings is now moot.

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 1 pending, respectively, in the Northern District of California and Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiff Lawrence Moore moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in a single federal court. All responding defendants oppose the motion.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that given the minimal number of actions involved in this docket, Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movant has failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact in this docket are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. We point out that alternatives to 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Michigan defendants’ request for fees and costs is denied.

1

. A third action — Lawrence Moore v. Electrical Workers Local 58, et al., E.D. Michigan, C.A. No. 2:01-72222 — was recently dismissed. Accordingly, the question of inclusion of this action in any Section 1407 proceedings is now moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6761, 2002 WL 661732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lawrence-mooreinternational-brotherhood-of-electrical-workers-jpml-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack