Case Name: In re CINTAS CORP. OVERTIME PAY ARBITRATION LITIGATION
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-18
Citations: 444 F. Supp. 2d 1353
Docket Number: No. MDL-1781
Parties: In re CINTAS CORP. OVERTIME PAY ARBITRATION LITIGATION
Judges: Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN and ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, Judges of the Panel.
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 444
Pages: 1353–1359

Head Matter:
In re CINTAS CORP. OVERTIME PAY ARBITRATION LITIGATION
No. MDL-1781.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Aug. 18, 2006.
Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN and ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, Judges of the Panel.
Judge Miller did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Opinion:
TRANSFER ORDER
WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.
This litigation consists of the 71 actions, each pending in a different federal district, that are listed on the attached Schedule A. The Northern District of California hosts the first filed of this docket's constituent actions (Veliz), which is a March 2003 action brought, inter alia, under state law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against Cintas Corp (Cintas). Veliz, a "collective" action in which over 2,000 plaintiffs have now joined, is brought by Cintas employees or former employees who allege that Cintas failed to pay them required overtime wages. The other 70 civil actions now before the Panel are motions to compel arbitration just recently brought by Cintas in March 2006 against a total of approximately 1,800 persons, each of whom is also a Veliz opt-in plaintiff and is named in only one of the 70 actions brought by Cintas. The Veliz plaintiffs (including the opt-in plaintiffs who are defendants in the actions brought by Cintas) move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing the MDL-1781 actions in the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Cintas, the Veliz defendant and plaintiff in the other 70 actions, opposes transfer.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Each person named in the 70 actions brought by Cintas is an opt-in plaintiff in Veliz, the remaining MDL-1781 action, and each of the 70 actions represents an effort by Cintas to compel a Veliz opt-in plaintiff who has asserted FLSA claims in Veliz to arbitrate those claims, not in the Northern District of California where Veliz is pending, but rather in the judicial district where the motion to compel was filed and where the respective defendants are (or were last) employed by Cintas. Resolution of the actions in this docket will require each of the 70 district courts where Cintas has brought suit to construe identical contractual arbitration clauses to determine i) whether the parties named in each motion to compel are refusing to arbitrate within the meaning of § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, and/or ii) whether the parties are complying with that obligation by seeking to arbitrate collectively in an arbitration proceeding already occurring in the Northern District of California involving a subset of the Veliz plaintiffs. The degree to which the actions brought by Cintas are intertwined with Veliz is further illustrated by Cintas's own allegations contained in those actions (wherein Cintas cites Veliz rulings and stipulations for purposes of collateral estoppel or res judicata in connection with the relief being sought). Additionally, each of the 70 courts in the actions brought by Cintas may also be required to address identical factual and legal arguments asserted in defense of those actions. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
In opposing transfer, Cintas has argued that the 70 actions which it has brought to compel arbitration are not "civil actions" and thus not within the scope of the transfer authority conferred on the Panel under Section 1407. In order to effectuate the statutory objectives, transfer under Section 1407 should contemplate the broadest sweep of the term, "civil action." Thus, to the extent that the motions to compel brought by Cintas are not criminal actions, are pending in federal district courts, and are suits of a civil nature, they are civil actions subject to transfer under Section 1407.
We conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee forum in this docket because i) the district is where the first filed and significantly more advanced action is pending before a judge already well versed in the issues presented by the litigation; and ii) all parties are in agreement that if the litigation is centralized, the California district should be selected as transferee forum.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action on Schedule A and pending in that district.
SCHEDULE A
MDL-1781 — In re Cintas Corp. Overtime Pay Arbitration Litigation
Middle District of Alabama
Cintas Corp. v. Randall M. Cornelius, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-227
Northern District of Alabama
Cintas Corp. v. Darren Mitchell Anderson, et al, C.A. No. 2:06^192
Southern District of Alabama
Cintas Corp. v. Ramon J. Baudier, Jr., et al, C.A. No. 1:06-148
District of Arizona
Cintas Corp. v. Robert J. Abel, et al., C.A. No. 2:06-693
Central District of California
Cintas Corp. v. Roberto Carlos Alegría, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-1750-
Eastern District of California
Cintas Corp. v. Ronald Arvizu, et al., C.A. No. 2:06-611
Northern District of California
Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:03-1180
Southern District of California
Cintas Corp. v. Daniel E. Ainsworth, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-632
District of Colorado
Cintas Corp. v. John D. Bickham, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-427
District of Connecticut
Cintas Corp. v. Eugene Christensen, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-360
District of Delaware
Cintas Corp. v. Charles Leroy Gray, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-162
Middle District of Florida
Cintas Corp. v. Alice Allen, et al, C.A. No. 8:06^400
Northern District of Florida
Cintas Corp. v. Joseph Frazier, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-103
Southern District of Florida -
Cintas Corp. v. David J. Abrahamsen, et al, C.A. No. 0:06-60310
Middle District of Georgia
Cintas Corp. v. Matthew J. DeFelix, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-38
Northern District of Georgia
Cintas Corp. v. Jeffrey Aybar, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-569
Southern District of Georgia
Cintas Corp. v. Joe L. Banks, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-35
District of Idaho
Cintas Corp. v. David DeBilzan, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-104
Central District of Illinois
Cintas Corp. v. James Allen Burress, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-1068
Northern District of Illinois
Cintas Corp. v. Vince Agozzino, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-1343
Northern District of Indiana
Cintas Corp. v. James Atkins, et al., C.A. No. 2:06-85
Southern District of Indiana
Cintas Corp. v. Ryan Albright, et al., C.A. No. 1:06^01
Southern District of Iowa
Cintas Corp. v. Donald Allen Griffin, et al, C.A. No. 4:06-91
District of Kansas
Cintas Corp. v. Matthew L. Blackman, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-2091
Eastern District of Kentucky
Cintas Corp. v. Danny L. Brown, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-52
Western District of Kentucky
Cintas Corp. v. Jason Agostini, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-131
Eastern District of Louisiana
Cintas Corp. v. Jack Addison, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-1247
Middle District of Louisiana
Cintas Corp. v. Gustave Fontenot, Jr., et al, C.A. No. 3:06-188
Western District of Louisiana
Cintas Corp. v. Ivan Edward Avery, et al, C.A. No. 6:06-391
District of Maine
Cintas Corp. v. Randall Bowles, et al., C.A. No. 2:06-55
District of Maryland
Cintas Corp. v. Joe Andrews, et al, C.A. No. 8:06-641
District of Massachusetts
Cintas Corp. v. Philip Daniel Blaisdell, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-10442
Eastern District of Michigan
Cintas Corp. v. Brandon Alioto, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-11043
Western District of Michigan
Cintas Corp. v. Travis M. Ault, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-180
District of Minnesota
Cintas Corp. v. John Callahan, et al., C.A. No. 0:06-1012
Southern District of Mississippi
Cintas Corp. v. Gregory Cole Bigbee, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-137
Eastern District of Missouri
Cintas Corp. v. Relton Barnes, et al, C.A. No. 4:06-450
Western District of Missouri
Cintas Corp. v. Randall Adams, et al, C.A. No. 4:06-208
District of Nebraska
Cintas Corp. v. Jeffrey Anderson, et al., C.A. No. 8:06-262
District of Nevada
Cintas Corp. v. Anthony Dean Hamby, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-300
District of New Jersey
Cintas Corp. v. Joseph Allen, et al, - C.A. No. 2:06-1164
District of New Mexico
Cintas Corp. v. Tony L. Bostick, et al., C.A. No. 1:06-185
Eastern District of New York
Cintas Corp. v. Troy Amott, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-1105
Northern District of New York
Cintas Corp. v. Hugh J. Kingsley, et al, C.A. No. 5:06-311
Southern District of New York
Cintas Corp. v. Louis Alves, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-1933
Western District of New York
Cintas Corp. v. Robert F. Bowles, Jr., et al, C.A. No. 6:06-6147
Eastern District of North Carolina
Cintas Corp. v. Matthew Anderson, et al, C.A. No. 5:06-113
Middle District of North Carolina
Cintas Corp. v. Gus Aranegui, et al., C.A. No. 1:06-225
Western District of North Carolina
Cintas Corp. v. Jonathan Allred, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-114
Northern District of Ohio
Cintas Corp. v. Bradley Agler, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-7083
Southern District of Ohio
Cintas Corp. v. Donald Adkins, et al., C.A. No. 1:06-126
Eastern District of Oklahoma
Cintas Corp. v. Robert Hall, et al, C.A. No. 6:06-97
Northern District of Oklahoma
Cintas Corp. v. Brent Berna, et al, C.A. No. 4:06-148
Western District of Oklahoma
Cintas Corp. v. Raymond Mac Harris, Jr., et al, C.A. No. 5:06-247
District of Oregon
Cintas Corp. v. Dennis Bassett, et al, C.A. No. 6:06-335
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Cintas Corp v. Kenneth W. Baptist, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-1053
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Cintas Corp. v. Brian Ash, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-517
Western District of Pennsylvania
Cintas Corp. v. Christopher Derenzo, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-324
District of Rhode Island
Cintas Corp. v. Joseph E. Edwards, et al, C.A. No. 1:06-112
District of South Carolina
Cintas Corp. v. Thomas Eugene Alert, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-762
Eastern District of Texas
Cintas Corp. v. Stephen Barlow, et al., C.A. No. 1:06-137
Northern District of Texas
Cintas Corp. v. Bryan Armstrong, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-432
Southern District of Texas
Cintas Corp. v. Judd Allen, et al, C.A. No. 4:06-824
Western District of Texas
Cintas Corp. v. Issac Anaya, et al, C.A. No. 5:06-216
District of Utah
Cintas Corp. v. Wade Bell, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-205
Eastern, District of Virginia
Cintas Corp. v. John 0. Ansirik, Jr., et al, C.A. No. 1:06-267
Western District of Virginia
Cintas Corp. v. Nelson Carter, Jr., C.A. No. 5:06-23
Eastern District of Washington
Cintas Corp. v. Scott Burgess, et al., C.A. No. 2:06-3023
Western District of Washington
Cintas Corp. v. Michael Anderson, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-332
Eastern District of Wisconsin
Cintas Corp. v. Nathan J. Andree, et al, C.A. No. 2:06-303
Western District of Wisconsin
Cintas Corp. v. Chris Broim, et al, C.A. No. 3:06-133