In Re Mansfield Oil Co. of Gainesville, Inc.

672 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10392, 2010 WL 424038
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedFebruary 3, 2010
DocketMDL 2131
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
672 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10392, 2010 WL 424038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mansfield-oil-co-of-gainesville-inc-jpml-2010.