Judge Kathryn H. Vratil took no part in the disposition of this matter. *

A central issue in the MDL is whether the defendant banks attempted to maximize overdraft

1

fees by posting debits to customer accounts in a non-chronological and/or largest to smallest order.

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: CHECKING ACCOUNT 

OVERDRAFT LITIGATION

Stephen T. Anderson v. Compass Bank, )

N.D. Florida, C.A. No. 1:10-208 ) MDL No. 2036

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Defendant Compass Bank in this Northern District of Florida action *

(Anderson) has moved, pursuant to Rule 7.1, to vacate the respective portion of the Panel’s order

conditionally transferring the action for inclusion in MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel and

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the MDL oppose the motion, as does the Anderson plaintiff.

After considering all argument of counsel, we find that this action involves common

questions of fact with the overdraft actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Southern

District of Florida, and that transfer of this action to the Southern District of Florida for inclusion

in MDL No. 2036 before Judge James Lawrence King will serve the convenience of the parties and

witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. We further find that transfer

of this action is appropriate for the reasons that we set out in our original order directing

centralization in the Southern District of Florida of actions sharing “factual questions relating to the

imposition of overdraft fees by various bank defendants on their customer[s’] checking accounts in

a manner to maximize those fees.” See In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F.Supp.2d

1333, 1335 (J.P.M.L. 2009). 

In opposing transfer, Compass Bank argues, inter alia, that it has a unique system for posting

debit transactions and that its disclosures differ from those of other banks already in the MDL. 1

However, we considered such issues in making our decision to centralize overdraft actions against

different bank defendants in a single docket, and we expressly recognized that the original cases, and

those that followed, might present “some unique questions of fact from bank-to-bank.” See id.

Notwithstanding any differences that Anderson may present, similar or identical allegations to those

found in the Anderson complaint can be found in most, if not all, of the previously-centralized

actions. 

Case MDL No. 2036 Document 460 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 2
 - 2 -

Compass Bank further argues that transfer of Anderson would “implicate[] constitutional

concerns,” contending that defendant banks already in the MDL “have been required to disregard

their factual and legal differences, instructed to file omnibus motions despite [such] differences, and

been subject to ‘what I said before’ orders that reflect absolutely no examination into the

individualized facts necessary to decide the issues involved.” Compass Bank Brief at 6. In

particular, the bank contends, the transferee judge would deprive it of its right to present “every

available defense.” See Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 66 (1972). 

An argument such as this should not be made lightly, and certainly should be supported by

strong grounds. We do not find any such support here. Compass Bank has not identified a single

instance in which Judge King has deprived a defendant already in the MDL of the ability to present

a defense. Indeed, the record demonstrates, if anything, that the judge has worked tirelessly to

manage this complex, multi-defendant litigation, and that he continues to afford every party in the

MDL a full and fair opportunity to litigate their cases before him. We emphatically reject Compass

Bank’s argument.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, this action is transferred

to the Southern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable

James Lawrence King for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring

there in this docket.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 John G. Heyburn II

 Chairman

David R. Hansen W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.

Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Barbara S. Jones

Paul J. Barbadoro

Case MDL No. 2036 Document 460 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 2