In Re Equinox Fitness Wage & Hour Employ. Prac., 764 F. Supp. 2d 1347

Two related wage-and-hour actions against Equinox pending in the Central and Northern Districts of California.
Movants (Equinox) and the responding plaintiff favor centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407; one action’s plaintiff has not responded.
On November 29, 2010, movants amended to include an additional action, which has since been remanded to state court, making inclusion moot.
The Panel found the cases involve similar factual issues regarding pay under California wage-and-hour law.
The Panel denied the §1407 motion for centralization, citing lack of necessity for centralization and the proximity of the two districts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is centralization under §1407 warranted here?	Plaintiff argues centralization is appropriate.	Defendant argues centralization is appropriate.	Denied centralization.

In re CVS Caremark Corp. Wage and Hour Emp't. Practices Litig., 684 F.Supp.2d 1377 (J.P.M.L.2010) (denial of unopposed centralization when few actions are involved)
In re UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 729 F.Supp.2d 1356 (J.P.M.L.2010) (denial of unopposed centralization with two actions)
In re H & R Block, Inc., Wage and Hour Emp't. Practices Litig., 729 F.Supp.2d 1358 (J.P.M.L.2010) (denial of unopposed centralization with two actions and a potential tagalong action)
In re CableNet Services Unlimited, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 716 F.Supp.2d 1363 (J.P.M.L.2010) (denial of centralization where two actions in adjacent districts within same state)
In re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig., 446 F.Supp.2d 242 (J.P.M.L.1978) (cooperation and deference minimize duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings)