Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01231/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01231-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Case MDL No. 2238 Document 51 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 3 

FILED 

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 

IN RE: GROUPON, INC., MARKETING AND 

SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION MDL No. 2238 

TRANSFER ORDER 

Before the Panel:· Pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in the Northern District ofCalifornia 

Gosling action and the Southern District of California Ferreira action move for centralized pretrial 

proceedings of this litigation in the Northern District of California. At oral argument, plaintiffs 

alternatively suggested centralization in the District of the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs' motion 

encompasses nine actions pending in five districts, as listed on Schedule A.2 

No party opposes centralization ofthis litigation, though the parties are divided as to where the 

actions should be centralized. Plaintiffs in all actions and potential tag-along actions pending, 

respectively, in the Northern District of California and the District of Massachusetts support 

centralization in the Northern District ofCalifornia. Responding defendants3 support centralization in 

either the Southern District ofCalifornia or the Northern District of Illinois. 

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we fmd that these nine actions 

invo lve common questions 0 f fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 will serve the convenience 

of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct ofthis litigation. All actions 

involve common factual questions regarding Groupon's sale ofgift certificates/vouchers with allegedly 

improper expiration dates and other objectionable provisions (e.g., requirements that gift certificates be 

used in a single transaction, that cash refunds will not be made for unused portions, and class action 

• Judge Barbara S. Jones did not participate in the decision of this matter. Additionally, Judge 

Kathryn H. Vratil could be a member of the putative classes in this docket; she has renounced her 

participation in these classes and participated in the decision. 

2 The parties have notified the Panel ofrelated actions pending in the Northern District of California 

and the District ofMassachusetts. These actions and any other related actions are potential tag-along 

actions. See Rules 1.1{h), 7.1 and 7.2, R.PJ.P.M.L. 

3 Groupon, Inc. (Groupon), defendant in all actions; Nordstrom, Inc., defendant in two actions; and 

Fun Time LLC dba Wheel Fun Rentals, Whirly West Inc. dba WhirlyBall, and YMCA ofthe USA, each 

ofwhich are defendants in only one action. Jun 03, 2011 s/ A. Victoria

Case 3:11-cv-01231-DMS-RBB Document 14 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 3
Case MOL No. 2238 Document 51 Filed 05/25111 Page 2 of 3 

- 2 ­

waiver and mandatory arbitration provisions). Plaintiffs contend that Groupon and the various retailer 

defendants' sale of the gift certificates/vouchers violate, inter alia, the federal Credit Card 

Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) and Electronic Funds Transfer Act, as 

well as state consumer protection laws. As all parties agree, centralization under Section 1407 will 

eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class 

certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. 

We are of the opinion that the Southern District of California, where the flIst-filed action is 

pending, stands out as an appropriate transferee forum. Given that this litigation is nationwide in scope, 

anyone of the three proposed transferee districts would be an acceptable choice. Our choice is the 

Southern District of California because it is a relatively underutilized transferee district that is located 

in an accessible metropolitan area. By centralizing this litigation before Judge Dana M. Sabraw, we are 

selecting a jurist experienced in multidistrict litigation who enjoys caseload conditions conducive to 

steering this litigation on a prudent course. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1407, the actions listed on 

Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of California are transferred to the Southern 

District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw 

for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action listed on Schedule A and pending 

in that district. 

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 

Kathryn H. Vratil W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. 

Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Paul J. Barbadoro 

Case 3:11-cv-01231-DMS-RBB Document 14 Filed 06/06/11 Page 2 of 3
Case MDL No, 2238 Document 51 Filed 05/25/11 Page 3 of 3 

IN RE: GROUPON, L~C., MARKETING AND 

SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION MDL No. 2238 

SCHEDULE A 

Northern District ofCalifornia 

Sarah Gosling v. Groupon, Inc., C.A. No. 3:11-01038 

William Eidenmuller v. Groupon, Inc., C.A No.4: 11-00984 

Southern District ofCalifornia 

Anthony Ferreira v. Groupon, Inc., et aI., C.A No. 3:11-00132 

District of District ofColumbia 

Carlos Vazquezv. Groupon, Inc., et aL, C.A No. 1:11-00495 

Southern District of Florida 

Jason Cohen v. Groupon, Inc., C.A. No. 9:11-80149 

Northern District ofIllinois 

Eli R. Johnson v. Groupon, Inc., et aI., C.A No. 1:11-01426 

District of Minnesota 

Ashley Christensen v. Groupon, Inc., et aI., C.A No.O: 11-00501 

Brian Zard v. Groupon, Inc., C.A No. 0: 11-00605 

Northern District ofObio 

Heather Kimel v. Groupon, Inc., et aI., C.A No. 5:11-00488 

Case 3:11-cv-01231-DMS-RBB Document 14 Filed 06/06/11 Page 3 of 3