Johnson v. U.S.A. Exterminators, Inc.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Johnson v. U.S.A. Exterminators, Inc.

588 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99050

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedDecember 4, 2008

DocketMDL No. 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 588 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (Johnson v. U.S.A. Exterminators, 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

Johnson v. U.S.A. Exterminators, Inc., 588 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99050 (jpml 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Defendants U.S.A. Exterminators, Inc. (Exterminators) and Phil Aron have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion.

[1379]*1379This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two districts, one action each in the Eastern District of New York and the Southern District of New York.

After considering all argument of counsel, we find 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. Inasmuch as this litigation involves only two actions, which are pending in adjacent districts, the proponents of centralization have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact 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 (Cepha-lexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004). The proximity of these two actions may make coordination by the parties and the courts feasible.

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Defendants U.S.A. Exterminators, Inc. (Exterminators) and Phil Aron have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion.

[1379]*1379This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two districts, one action each in the Eastern District of New York and the Southern District of New York.

After considering all argument of counsel, we find 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. Inasmuch as this litigation involves only two actions, which are pending in adjacent districts, the proponents of centralization have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact 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 (Cepha-lexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004). The proximity of these two actions may make coordination by the parties and the courts feasible.

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)

588 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-usa-exterminators-inc-jpml-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack