Melder v. Allstate Corp.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Melder v. Allstate Corp.

460 F. Supp. 2d 1376

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedOctober 16, 2006

DocketC.A. No. 2:03-2499; C.A. No. 5:01-1010; No. MDL 1795

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 460 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (Melder v. Allstate Corp.) 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

Melder v. Allstate Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (jpml 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Western District of Texas, respectively. Plaintiffs in the Louisiana action move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for transfer of the Louisiana action to the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs in the Texas action and all defendants oppose Section 1407 centralization.

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, which involves only two actions pending in two districts. Movants have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket in which the Texas action has been pending for almost five years and is the subject of a pending class action settlement. Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever remaining 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, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

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

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Western District of Texas, respectively. Plaintiffs in the Louisiana action move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for transfer of the Louisiana action to the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs in the Texas action and all defendants oppose Section 1407 centralization.

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, which involves only two actions pending in two districts. Movants have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket in which the Texas action has been pending for almost five years and is the subject of a pending class action settlement. Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever remaining 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, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

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)

460 F. Supp. 2d 1376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melder-v-allstate-corp-jpml-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack