2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177693
J.P.M.L.2012Background
- Capital One moves for centralized pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and seeks transfer to the Northern District of Illinois for 31 actions listed on Schedule A.
- Leading Edge Recovery Solutions supports centralization in NDIL; most responding plaintiffs oppose centralization, with some supporting alternate transferee districts if centralization occurs.
- The subject actions share factual issues about Capital One’s calling policies and consent procedures for cell-phone calls to consumers.
- Responding plaintiffs argue primarily case-specific issues, while the Panel recognizes common issues exist, especially whether Capital One willfully violated the TCPA.
- The Panel decides to centralize in NDIL, assign to Judge James F. Holderman, Jr., for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, subject to remand if appropriate.
- Two actions are already in NDIL, several are tag-along actions, and the MDL panel notes related actions may be involved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 31 actions should be centralized under § 1407. | plaintiffs oppose centralization or prefer different transferee. | Capital One argues centralization will streamline discovery and pretrial proceedings. | Centralization approved in NDIL. |
| Do common questions of fact exist, including TCPA willfulness and calling practices? | plaintiffs emphasize case-specific issues predominate. | Capital One contends common issues predominate and support centralized review. | Common issues exist; centralization appropriate. |
| Is the Northern District of Illinois an appropriate transferee district? | opposition to NDIL as transferee district. | NDIL is central, convenient, and veteran MDL judge is available. | NDIL deemed appropriate transferee district. |
| Should the case proceed with coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in NDIL? | not explicitly stated; objections focus on process in other districts. | Coordination will prevent duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings. | Transfer to NDIL for coordinated pretrial proceedings ordered. |
| What happens to actions with potential unique issues or remand needs? | some actions may have unique issues warranting remand. | Transferee judge may remand actions with unique issues if appropriate. | Transferee may remand, as appropriate, after common pretrial proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Evergreen Valley Project Litig., 435 F. Supp. 923 (J.P.M.L.1977) (transferee judge conducts common pretrial proceedings; may remand.)
- In re: Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Prods. Liab. Litig., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L.2010) (panel may designate transferee and oversee coordination.)
- In re: Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 846 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L.2011) (centralization promotes efficient discovery and uniform rulings.)