In re Robert Reedom Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In re Robert Reedom Litigation

65 F. Supp. 3d 1414, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171955, 2014 WL 7006971

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedDecember 12, 2014

DocketMDL No. 2585

StatusPublished

This text of 65 F. Supp. 3d 1414 (In re Robert Reedom 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 Robert Reedom Litigation, 65 F. Supp. 3d 1414, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171955, 2014 WL 7006971 (jpml 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair.

Before the Panel:

* Plaintiff Robert Reedom, pro se, moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for centralization of two actions he filed in the District of New Jersey and the District of the Virgin Islands, as listed on Schedule A, in an unspecified venue that [1415]*1415will provide due process.¹ Defendants Sabra A. Crappell and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company oppose the motion.

After considering the arguments of the parties, we deny the motion for centralization. Although these nearly identical actions raise the same factual questions arising from plaintiffs allegations that he suffered injuries in an April 24, 2012, car accident involving defendants Crappell and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, there are only two actions at issue, and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. See In re Transocean Ltd. Secs. Litig. (No. II), 753 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L.2010) (“As we have stated in the past, where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the moving party generally bears a heavier burden of demonstrating the need for centralization.”).

The record also indicates that plaintiff misunderstands the centralization process. His supplemental brief suggests that the Panel itself should resolve his actions. Centralization of these actions before the Panel or a ruling by the Panel on the claims in the case is not authorized under Section 1407. See In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir.1990) (“Section 1407 does not empower the MDL Panel to decide questions going to the jurisdiction or the merits of a case.”); In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon ” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, 764 F.Supp.2d 1352, 1353 n. 1 (J.P.M.L.2011) (same).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2585 — IN RE: ROBERT REEDOM LITIGATION

District of New Jersey

REEDOM v. CRAPPELL, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-05674

District of the Virgin Islands

REEDOM v. CRAPPELL, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:13-00095

Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the decision of this matter.

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair.

Before the Panel:

* Plaintiff Robert Reedom, pro se, moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for centralization of two actions he filed in the District of New Jersey and the District of the Virgin Islands, as listed on Schedule A, in an unspecified venue that [1415]*1415will provide due process.¹ Defendants Sabra A. Crappell and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company oppose the motion.

After considering the arguments of the parties, we deny the motion for centralization. Although these nearly identical actions raise the same factual questions arising from plaintiffs allegations that he suffered injuries in an April 24, 2012, car accident involving defendants Crappell and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, there are only two actions at issue, and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. See In re Transocean Ltd. Secs. Litig. (No. II), 753 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L.2010) (“As we have stated in the past, where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the moving party generally bears a heavier burden of demonstrating the need for centralization.”).

The record also indicates that plaintiff misunderstands the centralization process. His supplemental brief suggests that the Panel itself should resolve his actions. Centralization of these actions before the Panel or a ruling by the Panel on the claims in the case is not authorized under Section 1407. See In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir.1990) (“Section 1407 does not empower the MDL Panel to decide questions going to the jurisdiction or the merits of a case.”); In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon ” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, 764 F.Supp.2d 1352, 1353 n. 1 (J.P.M.L.2011) (same).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2585 — IN RE: ROBERT REEDOM LITIGATION

District of New Jersey

REEDOM v. CRAPPELL, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-05674

District of the Virgin Islands

REEDOM v. CRAPPELL, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:13-00095

Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the decision of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 F. Supp. 3d 1414, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171955, 2014 WL 7006971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-reedom-litigation-jpml-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack