In Re Telecommunication Providers' Fiber Optic Cable Installation Litigation

199 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 2002 WL 661729

• Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
• Decided: April 29, 2002
• Docket: MDL 1452
• Status: Published

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

This litigation currently consists of the 31 actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in twenty federal districts as follows: three actions in the District of Kansas; two actions each in the Eastern District of California, the District of Colorado, the Southern District of Indiana, the Western District of Louisiana, the Western District of Missouri, the District of Nebraska, the Northern District of Oklahoma, the District of Oregon, and the District of South Carolina; and one action each in the Northern District of Alabama, the Central District of California, the Southern District of Georgia, the District of Idaho, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Illinois, the Northern District of Indiana, the Southern District of Mississippi, the District of North Dakota, and the Eastern District of Texas. Before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, brought by plaintiffs in fourteen actions seeking coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of the actions in this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois or the Southern District of Indiana. 1 Plaintiffs in two related actions in the Middle District of North Carolina join the motion. In addition, plaintiffs in state court litigation in Tennessee who have intervened in the Northern District of Illinois action also favor transfer. Opposed to transfer are all defendants and plaintiffs in another fourteen actions subject to the motion. Should the Panel order transfer, all but three of these parties would support the District of Oregon as transferee district. Plaintiffs in related state court litigation in Louisiana who have intervened in the two Western District of Louisiana actions also oppose transfer.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Mov-ants have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact as opposed to questions of law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket in which some constituent actions have been pending for several years and in which pretrial proceedings have been ongoing in both state and federal courts for thirteen years. We observe that many of the actions are procedurally so far advanced that discovery is completed or nearly completed, and a substantial number of class certification, summary judgment, dismissal, remand, and other motions have been fully briefed and decided or are pending in various courts. We also note that a nationwide class action settlement agreement has been reached with each of the five telecommunications companies named as defendants in the actions before the Panel. That settlement, if ultimately approved, would finally resolve the vast majority of the litigation sought to be transferred. We point out that alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might otherwise be of duplica-tive discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings, or both. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

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

Northern District of Alabama

Julius B. Cooper, Jr. v. MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:01-1664

Central District of California

William Nelson, et al. v. MCI WorldCom Network Services, et al., C.A. No. 2:01-8205

Eastern District of California

Dirk Regan, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:01-766

Dirk Regan, et al. v. Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:01-779

District of Colorado

Orin Loos, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 1:01-75

Robert C. Barr, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:01-748

Southern District of Georgia

James E. Oellerich, et al. v. MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-121

District of Idaho

Dennis Koyle, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-286

Northern District of Illinois

Vincent E. Buchenau, et al. v. Sprint Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:99-3844

Southern District of Illinois

Harriett Bauer, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-308

Northern District of Indiana

Stanley J. Hynek, et al. v. MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:00-758

Southern District of Indiana

Rodney Busenbark, et al. v. MCI WorldCom, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:98-1245

Jerry L. Ostler, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:00-718

District of Kansas

Victor O. Browning v. MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:01-2230

James B. Mulligan v. MCI WorldCom, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:00-4040

Harold Watson, et al. v. Qwest Communications Corp., et al., C.A. No. 5:00-4132

Western District of Louisiana

Randolph McCormick, et al. MCI WorldCom, et al., C.A. No. 6:01-415

Don Alexander, et al v. MCI WorldCom, et al., C.A. No. 6:01-1237

Southern District of Mississippi

Benjamin L. Carrubba, et al. v. WorldCom, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-282

Western District of Missouri

Cirese Investment Co. v. Qwest Communications Corp., et. al., C.A. No. 4:00-42

Cirese Investment Co. v. MCI WorldCom, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:00-50

District of Nebraska

Patricia L. Eggerling, et al. v. WorldCom, et al., C.A. No. 4:00-543

Devon Lewis v. Sprint Communications, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:00-3278

District of North Dakota

Marlyn E. Nudell, et al. v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:01-41

Northern District of Oklahoma

M.A.S. Hallaba v. WorldCom Network Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:98-895

George Shrier, et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:99-636

District of Oregon

Geneva Rebb, et al. v. MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:00-1568

Bill Zografos, et al. v. Qwest Communications Corp., C.A. No. 6:00-6201

District of South Carolina

Sustainable Forest LLC, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:01-2935

Tommy L. Frederick, et al. v. MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:01-802

Eastern District of Texas

Paul D. Drawhorn, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, et al., C.A. No. 1:99-415

1 . Four additional Southern District of Illinois actions that were subject to the Section 1407 motion have been dismissed or remanded to state court: John H. Isaacs, et al. v. Sprint Corp., et al., S.D. Illinois, C.A. No. 3:00-155; Ronald W. Poor, et al. v. Sprint Corp., et al., S.D. Illinois, C.A. No. 3:00-299; Tri-County Feed Mill Inc. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., S.D. Illinois, C.A. No. 3:01-307; and James Becherer, et al. v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., et al., S.D. Illinois, C.A. No. 3:01-689. Accordingly, the question of Section 1407 transfer with respect to these actions is moot at this time.