831 F.Supp.2d 1371
J.P.M.L.2011Background
- Forty-four actions listed on Schedule A seek coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in MDL No. 2296.
- Plaintiffs (former Tribune Co. shareholders) number over 1,700; about 385 support centralization and fewer than 100 oppose.
- All actions arise from Tribune's 2007 leveraged buyout and 2008 bankruptcy, with effects on creditors and transfers at issue.
- Centralization aims to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings, and conserve resources across actions.
- The Southern District of New York is chosen as transferee due to expected location of documents/witnesses and forum convenience; Judge Richard J. Holwell to oversee coordinated proceedings.
- Panel notes that while some actions may have unique facts, there are numerous common questions arising from the LBO and related events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1407 centralization is appropriate given common and individual issues. | Shareholders contend common questions predominate and centralization benefits apply. | Defendants argue many actions have unique questions that may predominate. | Centralization appropriate; transferee court can handle common and individual discovery tracks. |
| Whether the Southern District of New York is the proper transferee district. | SDNY is convenient for documents/witnesses and parties; experienced judge will manage efficiently. | No single forum stands out; centralization may be premature or burdensome for some. | SDNY retained as appropriate transferee with Judge Holwell overseeing proceedings. |
| Whether centralization should be pursued now despite pending service or motions to dismiss. | Early centralized handling streamlines resolution of common issues and coordination with bankruptcy. | Proceedings should await service and district-specific rulings before centralization. | Centralization at this time affirmed to streamline coordination and efficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., 624 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (illustrates that full identity of issues is not required for centralization)
- In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 173 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2001) (supports centralization despite some non-identical issues)
- In re Yamaha Motor Corp. Rhino ATV Prods. Liab. Litig., 597 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (permits common and individual discovery tracks under centralized management)
- In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (premature centralization rejected where appropriate; here supports efficiency reasoning)
- In re Refco Sec. Litig., 530 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2007) (facilitates coordination between actions and bankruptcy proceedings)
- In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 588 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (highlights efficiency gains from centralized pretrial management)