Jacobs v. Osmose, Inc.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Jacobs v. Osmose, Inc.

188 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2638

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedFebruary 15, 2002

DocketNo. 1438

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (Jacobs v. Osmose, 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

Jacobs v. Osmose, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2638 (jpml 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[1381]*1381 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions pending, respectively, in the Southern District of Florida and the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiff in the Florida action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Southern District of Florida. All responding defendants, as well as plaintiffs in the Louisiana action, oppose transfer.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, 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. Movant has failed to persuade us at this time that any common questions of fact and law in this docket are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. We point out that 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, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

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

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

[1381]*1381 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions pending, respectively, in the Southern District of Florida and the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiff in the Florida action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Southern District of Florida. All responding defendants, as well as plaintiffs in the Louisiana action, oppose transfer.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, 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. Movant has failed to persuade us at this time that any common questions of fact and law in this docket are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer. We point out that 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, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-osmose-inc-jpml-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack