In re Michaels Stores, Inc.
844 F. Supp. 2d 1368
J.P.M.L.2012Background
- Seven actions pending in two districts involve alleged tampering with PIN pad devices in Michaels stores.
- Six actions have been consolidated; one New Jersey action has not responded to the motion.
- The MDL motion seeks centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (MDL No. 2312).
- One action was transferred to NDIL from NJ under § 1404; another NJ plaintiff reportedly will not consent to 1404 transfer.
- Court declines centralization, noting only seven actions and arguing alternatives to 1407 transfer exist to avoid duplicative discovery.
- Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. did not participate in the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to centralize the seven actions under § 1407 | Michaels supports centralization for efficiency | Not warranted given few actions and limited consolidation | Denied centralization |
| Whether § 1404 transfer to NDIL is a better option | (not explicitly stated) | Transfer under § 1404 is preferable to centralization | § 1404 transfer is the better course |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig., 753 F.Supp.2d 1373 (J.P.M.L.2010) (centralization not warranted for minimal actions at issue)
- In re Helicopter Crash Near Zachary, La., on Dec. 9, 2001, 484 F.Supp.2d 1354 (J.P.M.L.2007) (cites preference for 1404 transfer over 1407 centralization)
- In re Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig., 446 F.Supp. 242 (J.P.M.L.1978) (illustrates alternatives to MDL centralization)
- In re Best Buy Co., Inc., California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig., et al., 804 F.Supp.2d 1376 (J.P.M.L.2011) (centralization should be last resort after considering transfers)