Source: https://www.classactiondefenseblog.com/category/30multidistrict-litigation/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:23:04+00:00

Document:
Five class actions – two in California and Florida, and one in New Jersey – were filed against various defendants – including Wachovia Bank, Bank of America and Citibank – “relating to industry-wide bank posting policies and procedures” surrounding overdraft fees. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. June 10, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1, 2]. According to the allegations under the class actions, the various defendant banks had implemented policies and procedures “relating to the imposition of overdraft fees…on their customer’s checking accounts in a manner to maximize these fees.” Id., at 2. Plaintiffs in one of the Florida class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of Florida, id., at 1. Plaintiffs in the New Jersey class action and defendants Wachovia and Bank of America supported the motion, but Bank of America argued for transfer to the Western District of North Carolina. Id. Plaintiffs in the California class actions and defendant Citibank opposed the motion and if the motion were granted argued for centralization in the Northern District of California. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, explaining at page 2: “While there will be some unique questions of fact from bank-to-bank, these actions share sufficient factual questions relating to industry-wide bank posting policies and procedures to warrant centralization of all actions in one MDL docket.” The Panel also agreed that the Southern District of Florida was the appropriate transferee court “because (1) two of the involved actions before the Panel are pending there, and (2) this district has the capacity to manage this MDL proceeding.” Id., at 2. Accordingly, the Panel transferred the class actions centralized in the Southern District of Florida. Id., at 2-3.
Four class actions – one each in Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts and New York – were filed against various defendants including Merrill Lynch arising out of “allegations that Merrill Lynch and/or its employees made misrepresentations or omissions in the context of the sale of auction rate securities (ARS) and manipulated the auctions for ARS in order to prevent auction failures.” In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Auction Rate Securities (ARS) Marketing Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. June 10, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations underlying the class action lawsuits, “Merrill Lynch failed to disclose that (1) ARS were not cash alternatives similar to money market funds, and (2) the ARS sold by Merrill Lynch were only liquid because, at the time of sale, Merrill Lynch and other broker-dealers artificially supported and manipulated the market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability.” Id., at 1-2. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of New York; plaintiffs in the class actions pending outside of that district opposed the motion. Id., at 1. The Judicial Panel rejected the objections to pretrial coordination and granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, finding that “Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” Id. The Panel also agreed that the Southern District of New York – “where the first-filed has been pending for over a year” – was the appropriate transferee court. Id., at 2. Accordingly, the Panel ordered all class actions outside of the Southern District of New York transferred to that district, id., at 34.
Two class actions – one in Georgia and one in Ohio – were filed against various defendants including RBS Worldypay arising out of “an unauthorized intrusion into RBSW’s computer system.” In re RBS Worldpay, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. June 9, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations under the class actions, the intrusion meant that various personal information (including Social Security numbers) of more than one million holders of gift cards and payroll cards was allegedly compromised.” Id. Defense attorneys for RBS Worldpay filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Georgia; plaintiffs in the Georgia class action supported the motion. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the Northern District of Georgia was the appropriate transferee court because “RBSW is headquartered in Atlanta, a significant amount of discovery is likely to take place in that district.” Id. Accordingly, the Panel transferred the Ohio class action to Georgia. Id., at 1-2.
Three class actions – two in Florida and one in New York – were filed against various defendants, including various Banco Santander entities and HSBC entities, alleging securities laws violations; specifically, the class action complaints allege that “defendants failed to perform adequate due diligence before investing money from their fund, Optimal Multiadvisors, Ltd., and some of its sub-funds with Bernard L. Madoff’s investment firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS).” In re Optimal Strategic U.S. Equity Fund Securities Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. August 11, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys for Banco Santander filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of Florida; plaintiffs in the Florida class actions and attorneys for various HSBC defendants either supported or did not oppose the motion. Id. Plaintiffs in the New York class action opposed centralization, and argued alternatively for transfer to the Southern District of New York. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits, finding that “the nature of the due diligence that defendants conducted prior to investing fund assets in BLMIS, all actions will likely focus on a significant number of common events, defendants, and/or witnesses.” Id. The Panel also agreed that the Southern District of Florida was the appropriate transferee court because “[c]ommon defendant Banco Santander International is headquartered in that district and two actions are already pending there, including the first-filed action.” Id. Accordingly, the Judicial Panel ordered the New York class action transferred to the Southern District of Florida, id., at 1-2.
Ten class actions – nine in New York and one in California – were filed against various Citigroup entities alleging securities laws violations “by misleading investors about the nature of Citigroup’s investments and the company’s financial condition.” In re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. August 7, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Specifically, the class action complaints alleged that the Citigroup defendants made “material misstatements or omissions in Citigroup’s disclosures about the company’s holdings in and exposures to subprime-related assets.” Id., at 2. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of New York; attorneys for the California class action plaintiffs opposed the motion. Id., at 1. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits and agreed that the Southern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court because Citigroup is headquartered in that federal district and because nine of the ten class actions “are already pending in the Southern District of New York before one judge who is also presiding over related derivative and ERISA litigation.” Id., at 2. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the California class action transferred to the Southern District of New York, id.
Four class actions – two in Florida and one each in Michigan and Washington – were filed against various defendants, including Park West Galleries and Fine Art Sales, alleging “that defendants operated a fraudulent scheme to sell fake, worthless, or low-value artwork at shipboard auctions or in private sales through the use of phony appraisals and/or other sales-related documentation.” In re Park West Galleries, Inc., Marketing & Sales Prac. Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. August 11, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) requesting centralization of the class actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Eastern District of Michigan; defense attorneys for the Holland America entities – “the only cruise line defendants” – did not oppose the motion, but the Panel noted that they were parties only in the Washington class action. Id. Plaintiffs in one of the Florida class actions and in the Washington class action opposed the motion, or requested transfer to the districts in which their respective class action was pending. Id. The Judicial Panel granted the motion to centralize the class action lawsuits but concluded that the Western District of Washington was the appropriate transferee court because “[that] action is measurably more advanced than the action pending in the Eastern District of Michigan, the forum favored by moving defendants.” Id. Accordingly, the Panel ordered the class actions outside of Washington transferred to the Western District of Washington. Id., at 1-2.

References: § 1407
 § 1407
 § 1407
 § 1407
 § 1407
 § 1407