## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 2280 J UAN A R MS T R ONG, J AM ES E. D UCKETT, R ODERI CK G ILLESPIE , et al., P la intif fs-A pp ellees, v.

L A S ALLE B ANK N ATI ONA L A S S OC I A T I ON, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 01 C2963

—Jam es B. M or an, Judg e.

A RGUED J AN UA RY 17, 2008

— D ECIDED J AN UA RY 13, 2009

Befo re R IPPLE, R OV NER, a nd T INDER , Circ uit Ju dg es . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . This appeal or i gi nated as a num bero fl aw sui ts aga i nst Am ste d I nd ustries , I nc. , i ts Em plo yee S toc k Ow ners hi p Pla n ( ESOP ), and A m ste d o f fi ce r s, b y pa r ti ci pan ts i n Am st ed’ s ES OP, c ha r g i ng vi ol ati ons ofERIS A , br eaches o ffi du ci ar y d uty, br each of c on tr ac t a n d co n ve rs ion . Th os e c as es w er e in iti a te d in dist ri ct c ourt s i n A l abam a, I l l i noi s, and Fl or i da, but on2 N o. 07

- 2280 A ugust 2 2, 20 01, the J ud i ci al Panel on M ult i dist ri ct Li ti gatio n ( the Pane l ) gr anted the defendants’ m oti on t o tr ansfer the case s un d er 2 8 U

. S. C

. § 1407 to th e N orthe rn Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s f orco nsol i dated p retr i alpro ceedi ngs. T h e P an el is a u th or ize d to tra n sfe r to on e d is t r i c t c ivil action s involving com m on q ue stions of f act t ha t w ere p en d ing in m ultiple d istri cts. Th e Pan el m us t fi rst d eterm i ne th at th e tr an sfer wi l l fur th er “the co nv en i en ce o fthe par ti es a nd wi tn es se s an d wi l l pr o m o te the j us t an d effi ci ent c onduct ofsuch a cti ons. ” 2 8 U.S

. C. § 1 407. W i th o ne e xc ept i o n n o t appl i cabl e he r e, the tra ns f era nd c o nsol i dati on i s o nl y f or p re tr i alpro ceedi ngs, and the case s ar e r em anded to t h e or i gi nal co urts atthe concl usi on o f th ose p roceed ings. 28 U

. S. C

. § 1407, 1407(h). Upon the t r an sfer, the di st r ict c our t o r der ed th e parties to fi l e t w o conso l i dated case s

— one consi sti ng o f A m ste d ret i re es and one ofn on- re ti re es. T he non- re ti re es’ conso l i dated com pla i nt added L aSa l l e Ban k, as Truste e f orA m ste d’s ESOP , as a defe nd ant. T hro ugh set tl em ent o r d isp osi ti ve m oti ons, al l r eti re e cl ai m s, and al l non- re ti re e claim s against A m sted and i ts affi li ated de fend an ts, w ere dism i sse d, and onl y the non- re ti re e cl aim s a gai nst LaS al l e r emai n a l l eg i ngtha t LaS al l e m ade a n i m pr ude nt val uati on o fthe com pany’s st ock, causi ng hea vy l oss es. I n the con soli d ated com p lai nt, th e non -reti ree p la intiff s ( he r eina fte r sim pl y the “ pl ai nt i f f s” ) i nc l ude d a s ta te m en t that “venue i s prop er i n thi s co urt. ” In additi on, they rep eated ly acq uiesc ed i n th e d istri ct cou rt’s setting of a t i mel i ne f o r di s c o v e r y a nd t r i a l, i nc l ud i ng t he s e t t i ng o f t r i a l da t e s . Atthe c l o s e o fp r e t r i a l p r o c e e di ng s a nd a p-N o. 07

- 2280 3 proxi m ate l y t w o w eek s bef or e the pre tr i alo rderwas due, h o w ev er , th e p lain tiffs m ov ed for a rem an d of th eir c l a i ms pu r s ua nt t o 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 4 0 7

. La S a l l e o b j e c t e d, ar g ui ngtha t th e pl ai nt i f f s bythe i r co nduc t ha d wai ve d the r i g htt o a r emand an d ha d c o ns en ted t o v en ue i n the N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. The di st r i ctc o ur t r athe r r el uct an tl y g r an te d the r emand r eque st, ho l di ngtha t th e pl aint i f f s ha d no t co ns c i o us l y wa i v e d the i r r i g ht to o b j e c tt o v e nu e . I n s o h o l di ng, the di st rict cou r t st at ed th ata wai ve r e nt ai l s th e del iber ate r elin quis hm ent o fa known r i ght, and that w aiv er s g en er ally m u st be cle ar an d u n am b igu ou s. A lthou g h t he di l a t o r y b e ha v i o r o f the pl a i nt i f f s i n f a i l i ng to m ake cle ara t ane ar l i ert i m e th ei r i nt en t to s ee kr emand caused the co urt c on ste rnat i on, the cour t be l i eve d that the c onduct w as not enough t o const i tute w ai vero f th at rem an d righ t. T h e c o u rtfu rt h er n ot ed th at it w ou ld be a “ni ghtm ar e sc en ari o” f ori t t o re tai n j uri sdic ti on an d try the cas e only t o hav e tha t initi al dec isi on ove rtu rne d o n a ppea l

. Al th o ug h the c o ur t g r an te d the re m and request, i t ul ti m ate l y c ertifie d tw o questi ons to th i s c o u r t u n d e r 2 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 2 ( b ) : ( 1 ) “ [ w] h e t he r t he f i l i ng o fa n a me n d e d c o mpl a i n ta g r e e i n gt o v e n u e a nd j uri sdic ti on i n the t ra nsf er ee cour t, and w hi ch adds a defe nd ant that m ay onl y f ai rl y be sued i n the t ransf er ee cou rt, cons titute s con sen t to tri al in th e trans feree court suf fi ci ent t o ove rco m e the r i ght t o seek r em and und er 28 U .S.C . § 14 07 (a) a n d th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d ec isio n in Lexec on, Inc. v. M il be rg Wei ss Berchad Hynes & Le rach , 52 3 U. S

. 2 6 ( 19 98 ) ”; a nd ( 2) “[w ]hethe r a wai ve r o fthe ri ght to re m and under Se cti on 1407 ( a) re quir es ev id ence4 N o. 07

- 2280 ofa ‘ del iber ate r el i nquishm ent o fa k n own r i ght’ o r m ay b e sh own i m pli ci tl y b y c onduct i nconsi ste nt with an in te n t t o s ee k re m an d .” T he de fend an t argu es on ap p eal t ha t the district cou rt er re d i n deter m i ni ng tha t the pl ai nti f f s had n ot waive d th eir rig h t to a re m an d u n d er § 14 07 (a). In ev alu at in g t h is cl ai m , w e a re gui ded i n the fi rs t i nstance by the w or ds of the s tatute its elf. S ecti on 1 407( a) pro vi des f orthe tr ansfer and conso l i dati on o fci vi l act i ons i nvol vi ng co m m on questi ons off act pend i ng i n d iffer ent di str i cts. The tr ansf er s a re m ade by t h e Panel upon i ts deter m i nati on that the t ra nsf er s would furtherthe conve ni ence ofpart i es and w i tnes se s a nd pro m ote the j ust a nd effi ci ent c onduct of s u c h ac tio n s. Id. S ecti on 14 07 ( a) , however, al so provi des tha t“ [ e ] a c h a c t i o n s o t r a ns f e r r e d s hal l b ere m ande d by the panelato r bef or e the co ncl us ion o f such pre tr i al proce edi ngs t o the di str i ct fro m wh i ch i t was tr ansferred un l e s s i ts h a l lb e p r e v i o u s lyt e r mi na t e d. ” ( e mpha s i s a dde d) Id. The S upr eme Co ur t i n Lex eco n, Inc. v. M ilberg Weiss B ershad Hynes & Le rach e t al. , 523 U

. S. 26 ( 1998 ) , was em phati c tha t the r em and l anguage sho uld be gi ven i ts pla i n m eani ng, st ati ng tha t “ [ t] he Pane l ’ s i nstr ucti on c om es in t e r m s of th e m an d at or y ‘s h all,’ w h ich n or m ally cre ate s an obl i gat i on i m pervi ous t o j ud i ci aldi scr eti on. ” Id. at 35

. I n Lexe co n , the Co ur t st r uckdo wn a l o ng - st an di ng pract i ce whereby a d istri ct c ourtwould tr ansfera case to i ts el fwher e r et ai ni ngthe c as e woul d pr o m o te effi ci en t re sol uti on o fthe cl ai m s. The Paneli tse l fhad sanct i oned such a ss ignm ents i n a r ule i ssued i n re l i ance o n i ts ru lem ak in g a u th or ity u n d er 28 U .S .C . § 14 07 (f). Id. at 32. The Cou r t he l d tha t r eg ar dl es s o fwhethe r pe r m i tt i ngN o. 07

- 2280 5
tr ansfer ee cour ts to m ake se l f

- ass i gnm ents w oul d be m or e desi rabl e than pres er vi ng a pla i nti f f’ s ch oice o f venue, § 1407(a) ca teg or i cal l y l i m i ts the a uthor i ty of cour ts to ove rr i de the pla i nti ff’ s cho i ce a nd es tabl i shes a r i g h t t o r e m a n d o n c e t h e p r e t r i a l s t a g e h a s b e e n c o mp let ed

. Id. at 41- 42. W e begi n, then, with the pro posi ti on that the cas e shal l be re m anded by the distric t cour t a t the co ncl usi on of t h e p re tr ial p ro c ee d in gs , un les s it is ot h er w ise te rm inated as by the gr anti ng o fa dispos i ti ve m oti on. A l though th e defen dan t attim es su g g es ts o th er wi se , the r e i s no need f orpl ai nti f f s t o ass er t thei r i ntenti on t o see k s uch re m and i n or der f orthe ri ght t o exi st. I nstea d , t h e presum pti o n i s tha tthe c a s e wi l l b e r e man de d a tthe c l ose o fpr et r i alpr o ce edi ng s. Be cau se § 1 40 7( a) i s a ve nue st atut e, ho wev er, pl ai nt i f f s m aywai ve the i r r i g htt o the re m and an d c onsent to ve nue i n the tr ansfer ee cour t, he re the N orthe rn D istri ct of I ll ino is . T he district cou rt he l d tha t su cha wai ve r may be f o und only ifthe pl ai nti f f s del iber ate l y r el i nquished a known r i gh t a nd that th e w a iver m us t be clear and un am biguou s. T he cou rt he l d tha tthe p l a i nt i f f s had f a i l e d t o c r o s s tha tthr e s ho l d. T h e p roper sta nd ar d to apply i n dem onst ra ti ng waiv er i s the s ubj e c to fmuc h de b a t e b y the p a r t i e s i n t hi s c a se. Th e de f e nd a nt a s s e r t s t ha t t he r e qu i r e men t t ha t a w ai verbe cle arand unam bi guous i s a pp l i cabl e o nl y f or the wai vero fco nsti tuti onalr igh ts, and that any c onduct i nconsi ste nt w i th an i ntent to see k re m and w ill suffi ce to de mon s t r a t e wa i v e r o fthe § 1 4 0 7 ( a ) r e man d r i ght. N ei therparty has bee n a b le to poi nt us t o any c ase s disc ussi ng thi s i ssue i n the conte xt of § 1 407

— a r efl ec ti o n,6 N o. 07

- 2280 undo ubt edl y , o fthe r el ativ el y min i m alc as el aw o n the su bj ec t. W e ha ve a ddr es se d wai ve r i n a n a na l o g o us conte xt, howe ve r, i nvol vi ng the waive r ofthe ri ght t o arbi tr ati on, and fi nd thatapproa ch pers uasi ve here

. As we noted i n A uto m o bile M ech a nic s Lo ca l 70 1 Welfa re and P ens ion Fu n d s v. Va ngua rd Car Rental U SA , Inc. , 50 2 F. 3d 740 ( 7th Ci r. 2007) , an a rbi tr ati on cl ause i s a spe ci es o ff o r um selecti o n c l au se , r efl ec tinga n ex a nte deter m i nati on bythe parti es ofthe m ost conve ni ent f or um to re so lve d isp u te s. Id. at 746, c i t i ng Vimar Segu ros y R easeg uro s, S.A . v. M /V S ky R eefer, 51 5 U .S. 528, 53 3- 34 ( 1995 )

. S uch deter m i nati ons ar e s ubj ect to w aiver or f or f ei ture , and as a g ener alr ule a dist ri ct c ourtsho u ld not dism i ss sua spo nte ei therf ori m properve nue orf or f ai l ur e to f o l l o w a f o r um s el ec ti o n c l au se . I n de te r m i ni ng w hether a party has w ai ved the ri ght to enf or c e t hat arbi tr at i o n c l au se , we he l d tha t “[ c] o ur ts m us t ‘ det er m i ne w hetherbas ed on a l l the ci rcum sta nces, the party aga i nst whom the w ai veri s t o be e nfo rce d has act ed in c on sis te n tly w ith th e rig h t t o a rb itr at e.’ ” H a lim v. Gr e at G atsb y’s A ucti on G alle ry, Inc. , 516 F.3d 557, 562 (7th C ir. 2008 )

. That a nal ysi s o fw h et her a par ty i m pli ci tl y wai ved the r i ght t o arb itr ate sho uld e ncom pass a var i etyo f f a c t o r s , pr o v i di ng s i g ni fi c a nt we i g ht t o t he di l i g e nc e o r lac k t h e re of. Id. W e m ade c l ea r i n Ha l i m that i t was not enough

— as the defendant a ss er ts i n thi s ca se

— to m er ely dem onst ra te any conduct i nconsi ste nt with an i n tent to see k a rbi tr ation . A ccor dingl y, we hel d that “ [ a] party do es no t wai ve i ts ri gh t t o arbi tr at e a di spu te b y fi l i ng a m ot ion to d ism iss or a m ot ion to tra n sfe r v e n u e,” alth o ugh t ho s e a c t i o ns i n i s o l a t i o n a r e c o ns i s t e ntwi t h anN o. 07

- 2280 7 i ntent to l i ti gat e i n the cour ts ra therthan to arbi trate
. Id. I nstea d, the f ocus i s pro perl y o n the acti ons tak en as a whole , and w hethertheyar e i nconsi stent with a n i ntent to arbi tr ate
. The s t a nd a r d f o r wa i v e r un de r § 1 4 0 7 ( a ) mus t b e a t l eas t a s s tr ong as that em plo yed in thos e a rbi tr ati on ca ses . Inbo th circ u m st an c es , w e a re p re se n te d w i t h a ve h icle f orf or um se l ecti on. W i th § 1407 ( a) , however, we have a st atut o r y rather tha n c o nt r ac tu alde te r m i na ti o n, that i fanythin g c auti ons f ora str onge r showing of wai ve r . Unl i k e arbi tr at i o n c l au se s, § 1 40 7( a) r equi r es the dist ri ct c ourtto tr ansferthe case

— i n l an g ua g e that the Suprem e Cour t r eco gni zed as “i m pervi ous t o j ud i ci al disc re tio n .” Lexe co n , 523 U

. S. at 35. A lthou gh i n th e arb i tr ati on co ntext, we hel d that di str i ct c ourt s sh ou ld not sua spo nte di smi ss a c as e f o r f ai l ure to fol l o w the arbi tr ati on cl ause, the d ist ri ct c ourti s r equi re d to tr ansfera case to the Panel atthe cl ose o f pret ri alpro ceed ings. Th e m an d atory na tu re of th e § 1407(a) trans fer, and i ts sta tutor y r atherthan contr actualo rig in, co unsel for a m ore rathe r than l e s s r e s trictive w aiver stan d ard th an thatused i n the arbi tr ati on co ntext. N eve rthel ess , w e n eed notaddress wh etherthati s i n f act necess ar y, bec au se even un d er the s tan d ard articulated i n th e arbi tr at i o n c as es, th e defen dan t ha s f ai l ed to de m o nstr ate waive r here

. W e co nsi der, then, wh ethe r the pl ai nti f f s, expre ssl y o r thro ugh c on d u ct, ev i denced an i ntent contr ar y t o that statu tor y mandat e, r el i nqui sh i ngthe r i g htt o r emand th e case and consenti ng to r ete nti on o fthe case by the tr ans-8 N o. 07

- 2280 fer ee co u rt . Th er e is little ev id e n c e o f su c h co n se n t in th is case . The defendant r el i es pri m ar i l y o n two acti ons by p lai nt iffs

— firs t, th e filin g o fa c on so lid at ed co m p lain t in whi chthe pl ai nt i f f s st at e th atv en ue is p r o peri n the tr an sfer ee c o ur t, the Nor th ern Di st r i cto fI l l in o i s, a nd seco nd , the parti ci pati on i n re peated pre tr i alpro ceedi ngs in w h ich tria l d at e s w e re se t b y t h e t ra n sfe re e c ou rt . In the c onte xt o fthi s ca se, tho se acti ons ar e i nsuffi ci ent t o demons tr at e ani nt en t t o r el i nqui shthe r i g htt o r emand the c ase to the tr ansfer orco urt. Fi rs t, the fi l i ng o fthe conso l i dated co m p lai nt was done atthe behesto fthe dist ri ct cou rt . A s i s co m m on i n s uchc i r cumst an ce s, the di stri ct co ur t o r der ed th e p lain tiffs in t h e c as es tr a n sfe rre d by th e P an el t o file conso l i dated com pla i nts

— one c onsi sti ng o fA m ste d re tir ee s a n d on e c on sis tin g of n on -re tir ee p ar tic ip an ts in the ESOP. The co m pla i nt by the re ti re es i ncl ud ed a st ate
m ent r eco gni zi ng t h at ve nue i s pro per i n the tr ansfer ee cour t, but that i s not in c on sist ent with a desi re to se ek re m and und er§ 1407( a) atthe cl ose o fthe pretr i alpro ceed i ngs. Venue m ay be pr operi n m or e than one cour t, and ther ef or e the posi ti ons ar e no t m u tu al l y e xcl usi ve. See, e.g., Jenk ins B rick C o . v. B rem er, 32 1 F

. 3d 1366 , 13 71 ( 11th C ir. 2003). T h e d efe n d an t, in arg u in g t h at th e v en u e st at em en t is i tse l fsuffi ci ent to est abl i sh conse nt, re l i es al m ost sol el y o n ou r d ec isio n inIn re A fr ican-Am er ican Sl ave D es ce ndan ts Li t igat i on , 471 F .3d 7 54 (7 th C ir. 2 00 6). Inth at ca se , m u ltip le l aws u i t s h a d b e e n fi l e d a r o u n d th e c o u n t r y s e e k i ng m o ne ta r y r el i eff o r ha r m s st emm i ngfr om s l av er y i n theN o. 07

- 2280 9 Uni te d S ta te s. The Pa ne l c o ns o l i dat ed al l the s ui ts i n the d ist ric t co urt i n Chicag o. On app eal, we noted that th e plaintiff s

— w ith th e exc e p tion of p lai nt iff H urd le

— “fi l ed a co ns o l i dat ed co m pl ai nt, an d sinc e ven ue in C h icag o w as properand i n any eve nt noto bj ecte d to by the par ti es ( othe r than the H urdl e g ro up , wh ose o bj ecti on we consi der l ate r i n the op i ni on) , the dist ri ct co ur t was unque st i o nabl y a utho r i ze d, no twithst an di ng Lexe co n . . . to deter m i ne the m er its o f the sui t. ” ( ci tat i on om itted ) Id. at 756. The defe nd ant ar gu es thatAf r i ca nA m erica n S la ve D escend a nts th er efo r e ho l ds th atthe fi l i ng o fa c o ns o l i dat ed co m pl ai ntwi th o uto bj ec tingto v en ue const i tutes a w ai vero f t he r i ght t o see k a r em and und er §1 40 7( a)

. T he r e ar e m ul ti pl e pr o bl ems wi ththa t ar g um en t. Fir st, th e qu es tio n b efo re th e c ou rtinAfri can-Am er ica n S la ve D escend a nts w as w he th er the d istric t cou rt c oul d deci de a m oti on to dism i ss. W e proce eded to h old that the t ra nsf er ee cour t m ay deci de such m oti ons re g ar dl es s o fpl ai nt i f fc o ns en t. S uchm oti o ns a r e par t o fthe pretr i alpro ceedi ngs p roperl y b ef or e the tr ansfer ee cour t, and ther ef or e a re r eso l ved bef or e t h e re m and i ssue eve n ar i se s. The ve nue det er m i na ti o n, th er efo r e, was i r r el ev an t to the ul ti m at e holdi ng . M o r eo ve r, the o pi ni o n g i ve s no i n d i c a t i o n o fth e l a n g u a g e u s e d i n th e c o n s o l i d a t e d c o mpla i nt, and i t i s cl earthatt h e p laintiff s ca n i n f act w ai ve th e ri gh t to § 1407(a) r em an d

. W he th er they did so there was si m pl y no t a que st i o n pr es en te d to the Afri can-Am er ica n S la ve D e s cend a nts c ou rt, an d n ot on e d ec id ed by it. In f act, ato ne poi nt the court re f er s t o the c onso l i dated c o m p lain t a s a “n ew ” c om p lain t. Id. a t 7 5 7

. I t i s c l e a r that pl a i n t i f f s ma y fi l e a n e w c o mp l a i n t, th u s r e mo v i n gth e m-10 N o. 07

- 2280

se lve s fro m th e P an el’s rea c h . For o u r p u rp os es , i t is suf fi c i e nt t o no t e t ha t t he c o ur t wa s no t pr e s e nt e d wit h th e que st i o n as to whethe r a v en ue s ta te m en t i n a c o nsol i dated com pla i nt auto m ati cally w aive s the r i ght t o a § 14 07 ( a) r emand, a nd di d no t dec i de th atque st i o n. A ccord ingly, th at cas e d oes not sup p ort the d efend an t’s p ro p os itio n th at th e v e n u e s ta te m en t in th is c as e c on st itu tes su ch a w aiver. M or eov er, the i ntenti on o fthe pla i nti f f s i n thi s ca se was made cl ea r s ho r tl y a fte r the co ns o l i dat ed co m pl ai nt was fi l ed, when bo th th e r et i r ee an d no n- r et i r ee plaintiffs fil ed a m o t io n for entry of a case m an agem en t orde r. Theirpro posed or der i ncl ud ed the f ol l owing l anguage : 6. Tr i al

. Su bj ec t to fur th ero r dero fthe c o ur t , the parti es ar e di re cted t o h av e thei r case s r eady f or tr i alo n a l l i ss ue s by Se pte m be r o f2 00 3. The co ur t ac k no wl edg es the pa r ti es may reques t th e re m a nd o fo ne o r mo r e o fthe ab o v e de s c ribed c a s e s t o t he t r a ns f e r o r c o ur t pu r s ua ntto Le xe co n, Inc. v. M il lb erg Wei ss Bers had, Hynes & Le rach , 52 3 U. S

. 2 6, 1 18 S

. Ct

. 9 56 ( 19 98 )

. The r emand o fa ny c as es w ill occ u r on c e t h e c as e is su b st an tia lly re ad y for tria l. T h e c ou rtgra n te d t h e p lain tiffs ’ m ot ion , alth ou gh it a pp a r e nt l y e nt e r e d a n a b b r e v i a t e d o r de r t ha t di d no t conta i n that l anguage . N eve rthel ess , any am bi gui ty as to pl a i nt i f f s ’ i nt e nt i o ns i n r e c o g ni z i ng t ha t v e nue w as properi n the tr ansfer ee cour t w as null i fi ed by the pr opo se d l an g ua g e. Evenabs en t tha t s ta te m en t, howev er, the m er e r eco gni ti on th at venue i s pro per i n the tr ansfer eeN o. 07

- 2280 11

cour t would notes tabl i sh an intent to f or ego the m andator y r em and set f or th i n § 140 7(a ), be cause i t i s no t nec essar i l y i nconsi ste nt with the asser ti on o fthatr em and ri ght. The defe nd ant a dd i ti onal l y poi nts t o the pl ain ti f f s’ parti ci pati on i n pret ri alpro ceedi ngs in the ensui ng y ear s, i ncl ud i ng the re peated est abl i shm ent of speci fi c tr i aldates

. I n cases c on sol i dated by the Pane l, i t i s a nti ci pated that the t ra nsf er ee cour t wil l engag e i n al l pre tr i alpro ceedi ngs, and that r em and w i l l o ccur up on the co n c lu sio n of such proc eedi ngs. There f or e, the pla i nti f f s’ p ar ti ci pati on i n thos e pr oce edi ngs i s no t i nconsi ste nt with th e in tent to see k re m and upon com ple ti on of thos e procee dings

. Certa i nl y, m uch agg ra vati on

— f orthe parti es, t he di str i ct cou rt, and this cou rt

— co ul d ha ve been avo i ded i fthe pla i nti f f s had si m plym ade cl earthr oughout th ose pro ceedi ngs that they r et ai ned the o pti on o fse eki ng a § 1 40 7(a ) rem an d

. N e v e rt h ele ss , th e q u es tio n for t h is cour t i s whether the c onduct w as i nconsist en t with an i ntent to see k r em and und er§ 1407 ( a). The agr eem ent a s to t r i alda te s i s no t i n i ts el fdi spo si ti ve o ftha t i ss ue . As the pla i nti f f s no te, the est abl i shm ent o ftr ial dates i s cr i ti cal to pretr i al proce edi ngs i n m any re spects , as i n th e p rom o ti o n o fth e t i me l y c o mpl e t i o n o fd i s c o v e r y a n d the f a c i l i t a t i on o fse ttl em ent ne got i ati ons. A pl ai nti f f’ s a cquie scence i n the est abl i shm ent o fsuch date s, there for e, m ay be a n eff or t to fa ci l i tat e the co ncl usi on o fthe pretr i al s t a g e , r a t h e r th a n a n a g r e e me n tt o f o r e g o th e r emand m an d ated by § 1407(a). That i s no t to say thatsuch a n agr eem ent i s no t r el eva nt
. I n In reCar b on D i oxi deIndu s t ry Ant i t r us tLi t iga-12 N o. 07

- 2280 tion , 22 9 F

. 3d 1321 ( 11th Cir

. 20 00) , the Ele venth Ci rcu it hel d that pla i nti f f s coul d no t see k a § 1407 re m an d because they had repeat edl y a gr eed to tri ali n the tr ansfer ee cour t thus conse nti ng to ve nue the re . The f acts o fthat case are i ll us trative of th e typ e of action by p la in t iffs t ha tc a n o pe r a t e a s a wai v e r o fthe r e man d r i g hta nd a co ns en t to v en ue i n the t r an sfer ee c o urt
. I n Carb on D i oxi de, atthe fi nal pre tr i alco nfe re nc e on D ecem ber11 , 1995 , the p ar ties st i pu l ate d that v enue and j uri sdic ti on w er e p ro p er i n the M i dd l e Di str i ct o fFl or i da and that t he c a s e wo ul d b e tr i e d b y the t r a ns f e r e e c o ur ti n Or l a nd o on Fe b ru ar y 5 , 199 6. Id. at1 322. On F eb r ua r y 5 , a fte r the parti es had asse m bl ed f orj ury sel ecti on, the c ou rtwas i nfo rm ed that som e o fthe cl ass pl ainti f f s had r eached se t t l e m e n ts
. Id. at 1323

. A s it ha p p en ed , those settlors i ncl ud ed the pla i nti f fcl as s an d the l ar ges t g ro up o fo ptout pla i nti f f s, w h ose at torneys had been e xpected to p ro vid e th e b u lk of th e t ria l w or k, in c lu d in g d ire c t e x am inati on o fpl ai n tiffs’ m aj orwitnes ses and cr oss - exam i natio n of d efe n d an ts ’ ke y w itn es se s. Id. at 1326 n. 8 . It was at that poi nt, o n the day thatj ury sel ecti on was to b e gin, th at th e plaintiff s exp ressed their de sire f or a § 14 07 ( a) r emand. The S upr eme C o ur t i ns tr uct ed th e E levent h Circu it to con side r the m atter in li gh t of Lexe co n , and the El eve nth Cir cui t co ncl ud ed that Lexe co n did not r equi r e r emand i n s ucha c ase wher e th e pl ai nt i f f s co ns e nt ed to tri al i n th e trans feree court, and i n fact “w ere fi ghti ng to keep thei r case s i n the M i dd l e Di str i ct o f Fl or i da, notto ge t them o ut. ” Id. at 1325 , 13 26- 27. Tha t ca se is m at er i al l y di f f er en t f r o m the o ne pr es en te d he r e. The pl ai nt i f f s i n C a rbo n D i o x ide co n-N o. 07

- 2280 13 tinu ed to pu rsu e the case in th e tra ns feree court f ol l owing the t er m i nati on o fthe pretr i alpro c eed i ngs, an d only aban d one d th a t i n t e nt ion on th e d ay of j ury sel ecti on wh en th e tri ali n that venue be cam e l ess d esi r ab l e wi ththe s et tl ement s byo th erpl ai nt i f f s who w er e e x p e c te d to d o t h e b u lk of t h e t ria l w or k. T h er e is no co m parabl e co nd uct her e. I n thi s ca se, the pret ri al pr o ce edi ngs c onc l ude d o n F r i day, F eb r ua r y 2 , 2 00 7, a nd on M onday, Fe bruar y 5 , 20 07, the pla i nti f f s r equ es ted r eman d purs ua ntt o § 1 40 7( a)

. The y e ng ag ed i n n o acti ons subsequent to the ter m i nati on ofth e p re tr i al pr o ce edi ng s th atw ou ld i ndi ca te c o ns en t to t r i ali n the tr ansfer ee cour t. The se tti ng o ftr i al dates as part of p retr i alpro ceedi ngs i s no t i n i tse l fi ncom patibl e with ani nt en t to s ee ka § 14 07 ( a) r emand, par ti cul ar l y wher e th e par ti es e xpr es sl y po i nto uttha t po ss ibi li tye ar l y i n the pr o ce edi ng s as was do ne he r e. The r e was no ongoi ng eff o r t to pur su e a t r i ali n the t r an sfer ee c o ur t be y o nd the pr e t r i a lp r oce edi ngs. A ccor dingl y, al thoughC a rbo n D io xide provi des a useful exam ple o fthe type ofact ion s that can c o ns t i t ut e c o ns e ntt o v e nue i n t he t r a ns f e r e e c o ur t, we do not hav e thos e typ es of actions he re. Th e d istri ct cou rt proper l y g ra nted the pla i nti f f s requestfora sugge sti on o f r emand to the Pa ne l

. Acco r di ng l y , the de ci si o n o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED
.

1- 13- 09