Case Name: IN RE: PROSPECT MORTGAGE, LLC, FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-13
Citations: 987 F. Supp. 2d 1383
Docket Number: MDL No. 2486
Parties: IN RE: PROSPECT MORTGAGE, LLC, FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION.
Judges: Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, PAUL J. BARBADORO, CHARLES R. BREYER, LEWIS A. KAPLAN, SARAH S. VANCE, and ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, Judges of the Panel.
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 987
Pages: 1383–1385

Head Matter:
IN RE: PROSPECT MORTGAGE, LLC, FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION.
MDL No. 2486.
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Dec. 13, 2013.
Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, PAUL J. BARBADORO, CHARLES R. BREYER, LEWIS A. KAPLAN, SARAH S. VANCE, and ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, Judges of the Panel.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.
Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendant Prospect Mortgage, LLC (Prospect), moves to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. This litigation currently consists of thirty-seven actions pending in thirty-seven districts, as listed on Schedule A. Each of the more than 240 plaintiffs in these actions alleges that he or she was employed by Prospect as a mortgage loan officer and was improperly classified as an exempt employee under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and analogous state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs all seek unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation.
All of the plaintiffs in the actions on the motion oppose centralization. Alternatively, they support centralization in the Eastern District of California before the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, who is presiding over the wage and hour lawsuit that preceded the present actions. See Sliger v. Prospect Mortg., LLC, C.A. No. 2:11-00465 (E.D.Cal.).
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that Section 1407 centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions undisputably share some factual questions arising out of allegations that Prospect misclassified the plaintiffs as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA and analogous state wage and hour laws. Individualized factual disputes, however, will predominate in this litigation, which is likely to focus on the applicability of certain exemptions to individual plaintiffs, such as the "outside sales" exemption. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.500(a). Discovery and motion practice as to these issues will be overwhelmingly plaintiff-specific. Indeed, the parties acknowledge that the substantial differences among individual actions were a reason that the parties stipulated to decertification of the Sliger collective action.
Thus, any efficiency benefits from centralization will be minimal. These are not class actions, so there is no risk of conflicting class certification rulings. The proceedings themselves will not be particularly complex — notably, the Eastern District of Virginia action has already progressed to trial, and Prospect's counsel stated during oral argument that these actions will require only two or three day trials per plaintiff.
Even if these actions require further common discovery of Prospect, centraliza tion is not necessary. There may be thirty-seven actions on this motion, but there are only two counsel — one plaintiffs' counsel and one defense counsel. We have no doubt that, where so few counsel are involved in a litigation, discovery can be coordinated by the parties efficiently without centralization. See In re Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Fair Labor Stds. Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour Litig., 829 F.Supp.2d 1376, 1377 (J.P.M.L.2011) ("The cases here are not particularly complex. And, informal cooperation to avoid duplicative proceedings is appropriate where most plaintiffs share counsel.").
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these actions is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2486 — IN RE: PROSPECT MORTGAGE, LLC, FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION
District of Arizona
James Barker, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-00822
Central District of California
Osric Brown, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-02850
Eastern District of California
Bonny Franklin, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-00790
Northern District of California
Javan Devore, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-01841
District of Colorado
Otto Muller v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-01079
District of Connecticut
Shelley Adams, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00581
District of Delaware
David Henson v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00719
Middle District of Florida
Michael Graham, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 8:13-01050
Southern District of Florida
Byron Andrews, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-21453
Northern District of Georgia
David Alexander, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-01312
District of Hawaii
John Dispirito, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00192
District of Idaho
Judy Bauer, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00190
Northern District of Illinois
Jeremy Allaway, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-03004
Southern District of Indiana
Judith Albertson, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00653
Southern District of Iowa
Andrew Glenn, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 4:13-00184
Western District of Louisiana
Damon Cutty v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 5:13-00820
District of Maryland
Larry Cadenhead, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-01186
District of Massachusetts
John Alves, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-10985
Eastern District of Michigan
Laura Noble v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 5:13-11837
District of Minnesota
Thomas Gallagher, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 0:13-00941
District of Nevada
Carlos Arias, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-00671
District of New Jersey
Matthew Zimmerman, et al v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-02585
District of New Mexico
Catherine Avants v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00376
Eastern District of New York
Lisa Baez, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, CA. No. 1:13-02449
Northern District of New York.
Sadiki Pierre, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00453
Southern District of New York
Justin Couillard, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-02676
Western District of New York
Thomas Del Gaizo, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 6:13-06200
Eastern District of North Carolina
Van Fleming, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, CA. No. 4:13-00098
Middle District of North Carolina
Stacey Johnson, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, CA. No. 1:13-00331
Western District of North Carolina
Joseph Keever, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00241
Northern District of Ohio
Victor Chappell v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00911
District of Oregon
Gregory Barnhart, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00669
District of South Carolina
Richard Kaponer v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 9:13-01121
Northern District of Texas
Dorianne Blunt, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-01595
Western District of Texas
Brian Hopple v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00137
Eastern District of Virginia
Thomas Sehler, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00473
Western District of Washington
Julie Cairone, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-00722
Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.
. Prospect notified the Panel of two related actions — each a petition to compel arbitration — pending in the Central and Northern Districts of California. Both actions have since been closed.