In Re Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litigation
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11391
J.P.M.L.2011Background
- MDL No. 2219, FLSA wage-and-hour litigation against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Actions included: Batchkoff v. Boehringer Ingelheim (N.D. Cal. 3:10-04830); Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim (S.D. Conn. 3:06-01985); Lopez-Lima v. Boehringer Ingelheim (S.D. Fla. 1:10-22398); Copello v. Boehringer Ingelheim (N.D. Ill. 1:10-07396).
- Plaintiffs seek centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407; Boehringer opposes centralization and supports selective transfer.
- Common factual issue: classification of Boehringer’s pharmaceutical sales representatives.
- Panel finds centralization unnecessary to achieve just and efficient conduct; encourages alternatives to transfer such as cooperation among counsel.
- Order: centralization denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether centralization under §1407 is warranted. | Moving plaintiffs seek centralization. | Boehringer opposes centralization. | Denied |
| Do local variances or localized discovery defeat centralization? | CVS factors support centralization. | Local variances/discovery argue against. | Not warranted; factors favor denial |
| Does party opposition weigh against centralization. | Some plaintiffs/defendants oppose centralization. | Opposition weighs against transfer. | Against centralization due to opposition |
| Are alternatives to transfer viable (cooperation among counsel)? | Alternatives can minimize duplication. | Cooperation feasible; centralization unnecessary. | OK to deny centralization; pursue cooperation |
Key Cases Cited
- CVS Caremark Corp. Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (U.S.Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit. 2010) (three broad circumstances reduce centralization appeal: local variances, opposition, few actions)
- In re: Rite Aid Corp. Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litig., 655 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (U.S.Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2009) (cooperation among counsel favored over transfer)
- In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F. Supp. 242 (U.S.Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1978) (illustrative of alternatives to centralized pretrial proceedings)
- In re: General Motors Class E Stock Buyout Sec. Litig., 696 F. Supp. 1546 (U.S.Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit. 1988) (transfer decisions not to consider governing law of transferee court)
- In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 729 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (U.S.Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit. 2010) (denying centralization due to progress disparity among actions)