In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation
3:11-md-02286
S.D. Cal.Mar 6, 2018Background
- MDL No. 2286 centralized many actions alleging Midland Credit Management, Midland Funding, and Encore Capital Group violated the TCPA by using an automated system to call debtors' cell phones without consent.
- The JPML centralized the cases to coordinate discovery into defendants’ calling policies and practices to avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings.
- Several member cases also assert non-TCPA consumer-protection claims separate from the TCPA causes of action.
- The Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) had its non-TCPA causes of action struck; the court suggested remand for cases where TCPA claims were resolved but other claims remained.
- The transferee court invoked its authority to manage coordinated pretrial proceedings and determined staying non-TCPA claims would promote judicial economy and fairness pending remand or resolution of the MDL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay non-TCPA claims in MDL member cases | Plaintiffs implicitly oppose delay of non-TCPA claims (seek resolution) | Defendants favor centralized TCPA-focused proceedings; avoid piecemeal discovery | Court stayed all non-TCPA claims in member cases pending remand or MDL resolution |
| Whether transferee court may control scope of coordinated pretrial proceedings | Plaintiffs contend remand may be appropriate if TCPA claims resolved | Defendants argue transferee judge may limit discovery to TCPA issues | Court affirmed transferee judge has exclusive control over pretrial coordination and scope of discovery |
| Whether a stay serves judicial economy and fairness | Plaintiffs may argue delay prejudices resolution of non-TCPA claims | Defendants argue centralization avoids duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings | Court found stay appropriate to balance interests and promote efficiency |
| Standard for granting stays in MDL context | Plaintiffs challenge broad stay as overbroad or unnecessary | Defendants rely on Landis/Leyva standards permitting stays for efficiency | Court applied Landis/Leyva framework and granted stay as within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (a court may stay proceedings as incident to its docket-management powers)
- Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) (stays are appropriate to serve judicial economy and efficiency)
- Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (district court discretion to grant stays when they serve judicial economy)
- In re Smith Patent Litigation, 407 F. Supp. 1403 (J.P.M.L. 1976) (transferee judge controls scope of coordinated pretrial proceedings)