Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04018/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04018-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: UNUMPROVIDENT CORP. SECURITIES,

DERIVATIVE & "ERISA" LITIGATION MDL No. 1552

REMAND ORDER

Before the entire Panel: Three plaintiffs move pursuant to Rule 7.6(f), R.P.J.P.M.L., 199

F.R.D. 425, 438 (2001), to vacate the order conditionally remanding the two actions on Schedule A

from the Eastern District of Tennessee to their respective transferor districts, the Northern District of

California and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendant Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

opposes the motion.

After considering all argument of counsel, the Panel finds that remand of these actions under

Section 1407 is appropriate. The actions have been pending in the transferee court for over six years,

and the transferee judge resolved motions for class certification and summary judgment. The transferee

judge has considered the outstanding issues and determined that retention of the remaining claims

would not serve the purposes of Section 1407. The Panel typically gives great weight to the transferee

court’s determination that remand is appropriate and will do so here. See In re Columbia/HCA

Healthcare Corp. Qui Tam Litigation (No. II), 560 F.Supp.2d 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (citing In re

Holiday Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation, 433 F.Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977)). 

Plaintiffs argue against remand, inter alia, that their motion for attorneys’ fees, filed after the

transferee judge issued his suggestion of remand, warrants keeping their actions, or portions thereof,

before the transferee judge. Based upon the Panel’s precedents and for the following reasons, we

respectfully disagree with this argument. The transferee judge specifically found that the plaintiffs’

remaining claims should be considered by the transferor courts because resolution of those claims will

require an analysis of the unique facts of each action, and it would not promote judicial economy to

resolve the individual aspects of the actionsin the transferee court. The transferee judge has had ample

opportunity to amend or withdraw his suggestion of remand since the plaintiffs filed their motion for

attorneys’ fees, but has not done so. We respect his suggestion of remand, and its basis, and therefore

will order remand of the actions.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these actions are remanded

from the Eastern District of Tennessee to, respectively, the Northern District of California and the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Case 1:03-cv-01000 Document 261 Filed 06/14/10 Page 1 of 3

Case 3:02-cv-04018-SI Document 62 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 4
 - 2 -

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

_________________________________________

 John G. Heyburn II 

 Chairman

Robert L. Miller, Jr. Kathryn H. Vratil

David R. Hansen W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.

Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Barbara S. Jones

Case 1:03-cv-01000 Document 261 Filed 06/14/10 Page 2 of 3

Case 3:02-cv-04018-SI Document 62 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 4
IN RE: UNUMPROVIDENT CORP. SECURITIES, 

DERIVATIVE & "ERISA" LITIGATION MDL No. 1552 

 

SCHEDULE A 

Eastern District of Tennessee 

Edmundo M. Rombeiro v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, et al., C.A. No. 1:03-1000

 (N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:02-4018) 

Thomas P. Davis, et al. v. UnumProvident Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:03-1004 

 (E.D. Pennsylvania, C.A. No. 2:03-940) 

Case 1:03-cv-01000 Document 261 Filed 06/14/10 Page 3 of 3

Case 3:02-cv-04018-SI Document 62 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

CHAIRMAN:

John G. Heyburn II

United States District Court

Western District of Kentucky

MEMBERS:

Robert L. Miller, Jr.

United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

Kathryn H. Vratil

United States District Court

District of Kansas

David R. Hansen

United States Court of Appeals

Eighth Circuit

W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.

United States District Court

Northern District of Texas

Frank C. Damrell, Jr.

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Barbara S. Jones

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

DIRECT REPLY TO:

Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

One Columbus Circle, NE

Thurgood Marshall Federal

Judiciary Building

Room G-255, North Lobby

Washington, D.C. 20002

Telephone: [202] 502-2800

Fax: [202] 502-2888

http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov

June 8, 2010

Patricia L. McNutt, Clerk

U.S. District Court

900 Georgia Avenue

Room 309

Chattanooga, TN 37402

Re: MDL No. 1552 -- IN RE: UnumProvident Corp. Securities, Derivative & "ERISA" Litigation 

Dear Ms. McNutt:

Attached is a certified copy of a remand order filed today by the Panel in the above-captioned

matter. The remand order becomes effective once it is filed in your court, the transferee district court. 

Please refer to Rule 1.6(d), of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, 199 F.R.D. 425, 428 (2001) for guidance on remanding the case files. See also, Rule 7.6(g)

which states "... the parties shall furnish forthwith to the transferee district clerk a stipulation or

designation of the contents of the record or part thereof to be remanded and furnish the transferee

district clerk all necessary copies of any pleading or other matter filed so as to enable the transferee

district clerk to comply with the order of remand." 

Very truly,

Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

By 

Teresa Bishop

Case Administrator

Attachment (Separate Document)

cc: Transferee Judge: Judge Curtis Lynn Collier

JPML Form 30

Case 1:03-cv-01000 Document 261-1 Filed 06/14/10 Page 1 of 1

Case 3:02-cv-04018-SI Document 62 Filed 06/17/10 Page 4 of 4