Moore v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Moore v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.

542 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28715

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedApril 4, 2008

DocketC.A. No. 2:07-14498; Bky. Advy. No. 3:07-2615; MDL No. 1715

StatusPublished

This text of 542 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (Moore v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.) 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

Moore v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28715 (jpml 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER VACATING CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDERS

JOHN G. HEYBURN, II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiffs in these two actions move, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), to vacate our orders conditionally transferring the actions to the Northern District of Illinois for inclusion in MDL No. 1715. Defendant Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (Ameriquest) and others¹ oppose the motions to vacate, contending that these actions fall within the scope of MDL No. 1715 such that transfer is appropriate.

After considering all argument of counsel, we find that transfer of these actions to the Northern District of Illinois would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at the present time. The actions pending in MDL No. 1715 relate to allegedly predatory lending practices by Ameriquest or a related entity in soliciting and closing residential mortgage transactions. The complaints in the two actions before us plead individual claims based on the specific loan transactions at issue in those actions, which will likely require unique discovery and other pretrial proceedings. Accordingly, we are persuaded that inclusion of these two actions in MDL No. 1715 is not presently warranted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that our conditional transfer orders designated as “CTO-34” and “CTO-35” are vacated insofar as they relate to these two actions.

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

ORDER VACATING CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDERS

JOHN G. HEYBURN, II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel *: Plaintiffs in these two actions move, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), to vacate our orders conditionally transferring the actions to the Northern District of Illinois for inclusion in MDL No. 1715. Defendant Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (Ameriquest) and others¹ oppose the motions to vacate, contending that these actions fall within the scope of MDL No. 1715 such that transfer is appropriate.

After considering all argument of counsel, we find that transfer of these actions to the Northern District of Illinois would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at the present time. The actions pending in MDL No. 1715 relate to allegedly predatory lending practices by Ameriquest or a related entity in soliciting and closing residential mortgage transactions. The complaints in the two actions before us plead individual claims based on the specific loan transactions at issue in those actions, which will likely require unique discovery and other pretrial proceedings. Accordingly, we are persuaded that inclusion of these two actions in MDL No. 1715 is not presently warranted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that our conditional transfer orders designated as “CTO-34” and “CTO-35” are vacated insofar as they relate to these two actions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

542 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-ameriquest-mortgage-co-jpml-2008.