UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: REFUND ANTICIPATION 

LOAN LITIGATION MDL No. 2334

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in all actions before the Panel *

move to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant JTX Tax, Inc. d/b/a

Liberty Tax Services (Liberty) supports the motion as to the actions naming Liberty as defendant.

Defendants H&R Block, Inc.; HRB Tax Group, Inc.; H&R Block Services, Inc.; H&R Block

Enterprises, Inc.; and H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc. (collectively H&R Block) agree that

centralization of the actions against H&R Block in the Northern District ofIllinoisis appropriate, but

oppose inclusion of the actions naming Liberty in centralized proceedings.

This litigation currently consists of seven actions listed on Schedules A and B and pending 

in four districts: one action against Liberty in each of the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Central

District of California, the Southern District of Florida, and the Northern District of Illinois; and one

action against H&R Block in each of the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Southern District of

Florida, and the Northern District of Illinois.

1

No party disputes that, at least, centralization of the actions involving each respective

defendant group is appropriate. The actions as to each defendant group share factual questions

arising out of allegations that each defendant group employed deceptive, fraudulent, and unlawful

business practices in the marketing, enrollment, and administration of their refund anticipation loans

(RALs). Centralization of the actions against each defendant group 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.

Judge John G. Heyburn II and Judge Barbara S. Jones took no part in the decision of this

*

matter.

A fourth action against H&R Block was pending in the Central District of California, but 1

that action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Additionally, the parties have notified the Panel that an additional four actions are pending

against Liberty in three districts, and an additionalfive actions are pending against H&R Block in five

districts. These actions are potential tag-along actions. See Rule 7.1, R.P.J.P.M.L.

Case: 1:12-cv-02973 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1
-2-

Moving plaintiffs, however, seek to centralize the actions against both Liberty and H&R

Block in a single MDL. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that the

creation of a single MDL would not be appropriate for these actions. There appears to be minimal

factual overlap between the RAL products offered byH&R Block and Liberty. No action names both

Liberty and H&R Block as defendants, and plaintiffs do not allege that these defendant groups acted

in concert. Nor do they allege there is industry-wide conduct, as was the case in In re Checking

Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F. Supp. 2d. 1333, 1335 (J.P.M.L. 2009). We find, therefore, that

Section 1407 centralization of the actions involving Liberty and the actions involving H&R Block

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

and efficient conduct of this litigation. See In re Credit Card Payment Prot. Plan Mktg. & Sales

Practices Litig., 753 F. Supp. 2d. 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (denying centralization of actions against

different credit card issuers alleging deceptive marketing of debt cancellation and/or suspension

products).

We are persuaded that the Northern District of Illinois is the most appropriate transferee

district for both MDLs. This district is supported by all parties and it is convenient and centrally

located. An action against each of Liberty and H&R Block is pending in this district. The parties

argued, and we are persuaded that, centralization of both MDLs before a single judge would provide

efficiencies, in that only one judge will be required to become familiar with the similar legal issues in

these cases.

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

on Schedule A are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent ofthat court,

assigned to the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings

under MDL No. 2334.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MDL No. 2334, originally named IN RE: Refund

Anticipation Loan Litigation, is renamed as follows: IN RE: Liberty Refund Anticipation Loan

Litigation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the three actions listed on

Schedule B are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court,

assigned to the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings

under MDL No. 2373. MDL No. 2373 shall be named IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation

Loan Litigation.

Case: 1:12-cv-02973 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2
-3-

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Kathryn H. Vratil

Acting Chairman

W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. Paul J. Barbadoro

Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer

Case: 1:12-cv-02973 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3
IN RE: LIBERTY REFUND ANTICIPATION 

LOAN LITIGATION MDL No. 2334 

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of Arkansas

Zaneta Houston, et al. v. JTH Tax Inc., C.A. No. 4:11-00858

Central District of California

Charles Madubuike, et al. v. JTH Tax Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:11-09580

Southern District of Florida

Pamela Patterson v. JTH Tax, Inc., C.A. No. 0:11-62472

Northern District of Illinois

Timothy Rowden v. JTH Tax, Inc., C.A. No. 1:11-08233

Case: 1:12-cv-02973 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4
IN RE: H&R BLOCK REFUND ANTICIPATION 

LOAN LITIGATION MDL No. 2373 

SCHEDULE B

Eastern District of Arkansas

Sandy K. Morton, et al. v. H&R Block Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:11-00859

Southern District of Florida

William Wimbley, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-24159

Northern District of Illinois

Norma Molina-Servin v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-08244

Case: 1:12-cv-02973 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5