In Re New Century Mortg. Corp. Prescreening Lit.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re New Century Mortg. Corp. Prescreening Lit.

473 F. Supp. 2d 1383, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34215, 2007 WL 473684

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedFebruary 7, 2007

DocketMDL 1813

StatusPublished

This text of 473 F. Supp. 2d 1383 (In Re New Century Mortg. Corp. Prescreening Lit.) 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 New Century Mortg. Corp. Prescreening Lit., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1383, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34215, 2007 WL 473684 (jpml 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

J. FREDERICK MOTZ, Acting Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of one action in the Northern District of Indiana and two actions in the Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of Indiana action (Bonner) move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Northern District of Indiana. Moving plaintiffs have also moved to withdraw the motion for centralization, asserting that they have reached an agreement with plaintiff in the Central District of California Phillips action that negates their need for transfer. Defendants 1 oppose the motion to withdraw and request centralization in the Northern District of Indiana. Plaintiff in the other Central District of California action (Forrest) opposes centralization. Plaintiff in Phillips also opposes centralization, but contends that the Central District of California would be an appropriate transferee district, if the Panel deems centralization proper.

*1384 On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held (without oral argument), the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In this docket containing just three actions pending in two districts, which were originally filed over a year ago, the proponents of centralization have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. 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, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of the Bonner plaintiffs to withdraw the Section 1407 motion is denied as moot.

1

. New Century Financial Corp.; New Century Mortgage Corp.; and Homel23 Corp.

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

J. FREDERICK MOTZ, Acting Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of one action in the Northern District of Indiana and two actions in the Central District of California. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of Indiana action (Bonner) move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Northern District of Indiana. Moving plaintiffs have also moved to withdraw the motion for centralization, asserting that they have reached an agreement with plaintiff in the Central District of California Phillips action that negates their need for transfer. Defendants 1 oppose the motion to withdraw and request centralization in the Northern District of Indiana. Plaintiff in the other Central District of California action (Forrest) opposes centralization. Plaintiff in Phillips also opposes centralization, but contends that the Central District of California would be an appropriate transferee district, if the Panel deems centralization proper.

*1384 On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held (without oral argument), the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In this docket containing just three actions pending in two districts, which were originally filed over a year ago, the proponents of centralization have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. 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, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of the Bonner plaintiffs to withdraw the Section 1407 motion is denied as moot.

1

. New Century Financial Corp.; New Century Mortgage Corp.; and Homel23 Corp.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 F. Supp. 2d 1383, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34215, 2007 WL 473684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-new-century-mortg-corp-prescreening-lit-jpml-2007.

Opinion

J. FREDERICK MOTZ, Acting Chairman.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack