In Re Mansfield Oil Co. of Gainesville, Inc.

672 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10392, 2010 WL 424038
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation·Decided February 3, 2010·No. MDL 2131·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Franchisees, which own and/or operate three gas stations in North Carolina, 1 have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the Western District of North Carolina. This litigation currently consists of three actions pending as follows two actions in the Western District of North Carolina and an action in the Northern District of Georgia, as listed on Schedule A. Franchisor Mansfield Oil Co. of Gainsville, Inc. (Mansfield) opposes cen *1372 tralization and, alternatively, supports selection of the Northern District of Georgia as a transferee district.

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 at the present time. These actions, which are pending before only two judges, involve a relatively straightforward business dispute among a small number of related parties. While some factual overlap may exist in the actions regarding certain of the gas stations, movants have failed to convince us that any common factual questions presented by these actions are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer at this time. We encourage the parties to employ various alternatives to transfer which may minimize the risk of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

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. 2131 — IN RE: MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINESVILLE, INC., CONTRACT LITIGATION

Northern District of Georgia

Mansfield Oil Co. of Gainesville, Inc. v. WNC Solo, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:09-108

Western District of North Carolina

Mansfield Oil Co. of Gainesville, Inc. v. Andy P. Jordan, et al, C.A. No. 1:09-205

WNC Stores, LLC, et al. v. Mansfield Oil Co. of Gainesville, Inc., C.A. No. 2:09-33

1

. WNC Stores, LLC; WNC Solo, Inc.; White’s Solo, LLC; Andy P. Jordan; and Deborah Dupuis. Movants refer to themselves as "the Jordan entities.”

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

In Re Mansfield Oil Co. of Gainesville, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10392, 2010 WL 424038 (jpml 2010).

672 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (In Re Mansfield Oil Co. of Gainesville, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Needham Excavating, Inc.
366 F. Supp. 3d 1367 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2019)
In re Bailey Financing Litigation
100 F. Supp. 3d 1384 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2015)