Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00652/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00652-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MERVIN THOMAS, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0652-WS-C

 )

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE )

COMPANY, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER 

The defendant has filed two motions to dismiss, (Docs. 6-9), to which the plaintiffs

have responded. (Doc. 13). After the case was transferred from the opt-out docket, the

Court ordered the defendant to file a reply brief addressing the status of any effort to

obtain transfer to the MDL litigation and the defendant’s position as to whether resolution

of the motions to dismiss should await such transfer. (Doc. 15). The defendant has

complied. (Doc. 16). 

The defendant confirms that the plaintiffs have notified the MDL Panel of this

lawsuit. There is no indication that the Panel has issued a conditional transfer order,

presumably because the case is less than two months old. Nor is there any indication that

the defendant will oppose transfer, and the Court knows from other cases on its docket

involving the defendant that it historically has not opposed transfer. The Court must

therefore assume that transfer will occur, and that it will occur with the Panel’s usual

promptness. The issue becomes whether the Court should address the pending motions to

dismiss in the interim.

As the Court explained in Boudin v. Residential Essentials, LLC, 2007 WL

2609510 (S.D. Ala. 2007), that decision “depends on which course will better ‘promote

judicial efficiency, avoid inconsistent rulings by different district courts, and avoid

Case 1:07-cv-00652-WS-C Document 17 Filed 11/05/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

prejudice to both plaintiff and defendant.’” Id. at *1 (quoting Betts v. Eli Lilly & Co., 435

F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1182 (S.D. Ala. 2006)). The defendant, which has seen the Court

employ this standard in Boudin and several subsequent cases, does not address it. 

Because this case fits the mold of the previous cases in that the motions require the

mastery of several procedural and substantive issues, with no particular outcome certain

at the outset, because the MDL Court has and/or will address similar issues and so

become proficient in them, and because the defendant identifies no prejudice to itself

from a delayed ruling, the Court concludes that the interests of promoting judicial

efficiency, avoiding inconsistent results between sister courts, and avoiding prejudice to

the parties weigh in favor of allowing the MDL Court to resolve the motions to dismiss. 

Accordingly, this action is stayed pending transfer to the MDL Court or further order of

this Court. 

 

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of November, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00652-WS-C Document 17 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 2