325 F. Supp. 3d 1377
J.P.M.L.2018Background
- Three related lawsuits were filed by InfiLaw-owned for-profit law schools (Florida Coastal, Charlotte School of Law, Arizona Summit) challenging adverse ABA accreditation decisions.
- Defendants (ABA and its accreditation bodies) moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the cases as an MDL in either the Western District of North Carolina or the Middle District of Florida.
- Plaintiffs opposed centralization and suggested the Middle District of Florida as an alternative transferee forum.
- The actions raise largely identical legal challenges to ABA accreditation standards (e.g., state-action and vagueness issues) and shared allegations that DOE and ABA officials were biased or coerced against for-profit schools.
- Only three actions exist, all involve common counsel, and no likely tag-along actions remain given InfiLaw’s ownership of only these three schools.
- The Panel determined the movants did not meet the heightened burden for centralization when few actions are involved and denied the Section 1407 motion, noting alternative coordination tools exist to avoid duplicative discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is warranted | Centralization will promote efficiency and avoid inconsistent rulings on identical legal claims | Centralization appropriate in Western District of NC or Middle District of FL to streamline litigation | Denied — movants failed to satisfy Section 1407 given only three related cases and common counsel |
| Whether common legal questions suffice for MDL | Legal uniformity over ABA standards justifies centralization | Merely common legal issues do not establish required common factual questions | Denied — common legal questions alone are insufficient for § 1407 centralization |
| Whether there are common factual questions (e.g., bias, coercion) justifying centralization | Allegations of DOE/ABA bias and coercion are common factual issues across cases | Facts may overlap but are limited; discovery into bias is not necessarily factual dispute warranting MDL | Denied — alleged commonality of bias does not meet § 1407 factual-question requirement here |
| Whether alternatives to MDL can address duplicative discovery | Centralization is the best way to avoid duplication | Coordination, stipulations, and joint discovery notices can limit duplication without MDL | Held — parties and courts can use coordination tools; MDL not necessary now |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig., 753 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (movant bears heavier burden to show centralization when only a few actions are involved)
- In re Envtl. Prot. Agency Pesticide Listing Confidentiality Litig., 434 F. Supp. 1235 (J.P.M.L. 1977) (common legal questions alone insufficient for centralization)
- In re Medi-Cal Reimbursement Rate Reduction Litig., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (avoiding multiple courts deciding same legal issue usually insufficient to justify § 1407 centralization)
- In re Real Estate Transfer Tax Litig., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (same principle regarding legal-question insufficiency)
- In re Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242 (J.P.M.L. 1978) (noting coordination mechanisms and procedures to minimize duplicative discovery)