In Re: Medi-Cal Reimbursement Rate Reduction Litigation

652 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 2009 WL 2905459
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedAugust 19, 2009
DocketMDL 2069
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 652 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (In Re: Medi-Cal Reimbursement Rate Reduction 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: Medi-Cal Reimbursement Rate Reduction Litigation, 652 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 2009 WL 2905459 (jpml 2009).

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California action have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Central District of California. Plaintiffs in one Central District of California action support the motion. Plaintiffs in three Central District of California actions oppose centralization or, alternatively, suggest a stay in the Northern District of California action. Defendant David Maxwell-Jolly opposes centralization.

This litigation currently consists of six actions listed on Schedule A and pending in two districts, five actions in the Central District of California and one action in the Northern District of California.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that the benefits of Section 1407 centralization are not significant enough to justify transfer of these cases. The actions here are pending in two districts within the same state and, by and large, raise strictly legal issues. One of the Panel’s prime considerations is often the need to avoid inconsistent rulings on similar issues. Usually, that consideration is bolstered by the concern for duplicative and burdensome discovery leading up to the legal issues. Here, very little discovery appears necessary prior to the joinder of the legal issues. Merely to avoid two federal courts having to decide the same issue is, by itself, usually not sufficient to justify Section 1407 centralization.

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

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2069 — IN RE: MEDI-CAL REIMBURSEMENT RATE REDUCTION LITIGATION

Central District of California
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. Sandra Shewry, et al, C.A. No. 2:08-3315
California Association for Health Services at Home v. Sandra Shewry, C.A. No. 2:08-7045
California Medical Transportation As sociation, Inc. v. Sandra Shewry, C.A. No. 2:08-7046
Managed Pharmacy Care, et al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, C.A. No. 2:09-382 California Pharmacists Association, et al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, C.A. No. 2:09-722
*1379 Northern District of California
Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, et at. v. Sandra Shewry, C.A. No. 3:08-5173

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

Related

In re Aba Law Sch. Accreditation Litig.
325 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2018)
In re OSF Healthcare System Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation
223 F. Supp. 3d 1343 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2016)
In re Federal Housing Finance Agency
190 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2016)
In re National Ass'n for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice Litigation
52 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2014)
In re Cleartalk-ZTE Arbitration Litigation
24 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2014)
In re Real Estate Transfer Tax Litigation
895 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
652 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 2009 WL 2905459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-medi-cal-reimbursement-rate-reduction-litigation-jpml-2009.