Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01179/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01179-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: MEDICARE FEE SCHEDULE

LOCALITY LITIGATION

Yolanda E. Marchetti, et al. v. Michael O. Leavitt, )

E.D. California, C.A. No. 2:07-1179 ) MDL No. 1906

County of Santa Cruz, et al. v. Michael O. Leavitt, )

N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:07-2888 ) 

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California action have moved,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation

in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiffs

in the Eastern District of California action join in the motion. Defendant Michael O. Leavitt, the

Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, opposes centralization.

This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two districts, one each in the

Eastern District of California and the Northern District of California.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that Section 1407

centralization would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further

the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Inasmuch as this litigation involves only two

purported class actions with distinctly separate classes, the proponents of centralization have failed

to persuade us that any common questions of fact are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to

justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that can

minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial

rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446

F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for

centralization of these two actions is denied.

Case 2:07-cv-01179-FCD-KJM Document 12 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 2
-2-

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

____________________________________

 John G. Heyburn II

 Chairman

D. Lowell Jensen J. Frederick Motz

Robert L. Miller, Jr. Kathryn H. Vratil

David R. Hansen Anthony J. Scirica 

Case 2:07-cv-01179-FCD-KJM Document 12 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2