Judd v. Secretary of Nevada
This text of 816 F. Supp. 2d 1383 (Judd v. Secretary of Nevada) 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.
Opinion
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:
After considering all argument, we will deny the motion. To the extent any of the actions or related actions proceed, any common factual issues are neither sufficiently numerous nor complex to warrant centralization. The overriding question in each action is one that is largely legal in nature, making these actions unsuitable for centralization. See, e.g., In re Property Assessed Clean Energy (Pace) Programs Litig.,764 F.Supp.2d 1345 (J.P.M.L.2011) (denying motion for centralization where common factual issues were largely undisputed and primarily common legal questions were left to be decided). The rapid disposition of numerous related actions brought by movant further suggests that centralization of the remaining actions is unnecessary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these actions is denied.
Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr., did not participate in the decision of this matter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
816 F. Supp. 2d 1383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judd-v-secretary-of-nevada-jpml-2011.