Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00018/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00018-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 12:1461 Homeowners Loan Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR BRIAN BOUDIN, etc., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0018-WS-C

 )

RESIDENTIAL ESSENTIALS, LLC., )

etc., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on its sua sponte consideration of whether it should

resolve the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Ameriquest Mortgage Company

(“Ameriquest”) before the MDL Panel determines whether its conditional transfer order

should be made final. (Doc. 56). Ameriquest and the plaintiff have filed briefs in support

of their respective positions, (Docs. 59, 65), and the issue is ripe for resolution.

Whether to rule or not rule on a motion pending transfer by the MDL panel

depends on which course will better “promote judicial efficiency, avoid inconsistent

rulings by different district courts and avoid prejudice to both plaintiff and defendant.” 

Betts v. Eli Lilly & Co., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1182 (S.D. Ala. 2006). 

The motion to dismiss is based on the statute of limitations. Ameriquest argues

that judicial economy favors an immediate ruling on its motion because its proper

resolution is “obvious.” (Doc. 8 at 5). That Ameriquest required 25 pages to brief its

motion to dismiss, and another four to explain why its resolution is obvious, (Doc. 59 at

4-8), does not instill confidence in that conclusion, especially when the motion must be

resolved separately as to multiple claims, through consideration of — at a minimum —

statutory limitations periods and rescission rights, regulatory notice requirements and the

degree to which they were satisfied, pleading requirements, and the doctrine of equitable

Case 1:07-cv-00018-WS-C Document 72 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

tolling. This case, in short, is worlds away from the straightforward motion to remand at

issue in Betts. 

Nor does Ameriquest suggest that its motion to dismiss is unique, such that no

economies of scale would be invoked by having the transferee court rule on all such

motions. The omission is especially telling given the Court’s express instruction to the

parties to address this point in their briefing. (Doc. 56 at 2). The plaintiff, for his part,

cites nine other cases filed in this district in which Ameriquest has filed similar motions to

dismiss, (Doc. 65 at 5), and almost all of these have already been transferred to the MDL

Court, with the motions to dismiss to be ruled on there. Even if these motions are not

identical, they are sufficiently similar that a single judge can master the framework and

apply it efficiently in multiple situations, with considerable savings in time compared to

that required for three separate judges in this district to do so. Moreover, the MDL Court

already has experience in such issues, (id. at 3-4), so that it begins the exercise with a

decided advantage over this Court. In these circumstances, unlike in Betts, judicial

economy cannot be furthered by ruling on Ameriquest’s motion before transfer. 

The presence of a batch of similar motions pending before the MDL Court also

exposes the risk of inconsistent results that would arise were the Court to rule on the

motion before it. Unlike in Betts, the motion’s correct resolution is not obvious on its

face and does not implicate issues of state law, and accordingly the risk of inconsistent

results is not mitigated thereby. 

Ameriquest notes that the Court has ruled the amended complaint alleges no

violation of RESPA by co-defendant Residential Essentials, LLC (“ATM”) other than

with respect to the mortgage recording fee, (Doc. 43 at 6-8), and it expresses concern that

the MDL Court might reach an inconsistent result with respect to Ameriquest. (Doc. 59

at 8-9). The risk seems low, since Ameriquest is not sued under RESPA, so that it is not

clear how the Court’s ruling as to ATM dictates a similar ruling as to Ameriquest. At any

rate, the risk significant under Betts is that of inconsistent results among transferred cases,

Case 1:07-cv-00018-WS-C Document 72 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

not within a single transferred case. 

The only prejudice Ameriquest identifies is that of participating in discovery in

this Court before its motion to dismiss is ruled upon. (Doc. 59 at 9). This is true of all

cases in this Court and so cannot constitute relevant prejudice.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to rule on Ameriquest’s motion

to dismiss prior to the MDL Panel’s final determination as to transfer.

 

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00018-WS-C Document 72 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 3