Opinion ID: 3071966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Case management

Text: The Center also challenges the district court’s case management of the MDL, specifically the district court’s use of pleading bundles and the separation of the Center’s claims for injunctive relief and civil penalties. The Center argues that the district court’s failure to place its civil penalty claims into a pleading bundle (1) was contrary to the citizen-suit provisions of CWA, CERCLA, and EPCRA, which permit federal courts to impose both injunctive relief and civil penalties, and (2) resulted in a de facto dismissal of those claims. A district court’s decisions relating to case management are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558 n.1 (1988); In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades on Dec. 29, 1972, 549 F.2d 1006, 1013 (5th Cir. 1977). “The trial court’s managerial power is especially strong and flexible in matters of consolidation.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 549 F.2d at 1013; see also MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (FOURTH) § 10.1 (2004) (“Although not without limits, the court’s express and inherent powers enable the judge to exercise extensive supervision and control of litigation.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate that in complex matters the district court may adopt “special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(c)(2)(L). Moreover, the district court is empowered to order separate trials of any “claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, third-party claim, or particular issue.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(c)(2)(M); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b). To say the least, the instant case presents an exceedingly complex matter, consisting of hundreds of individual cases and tens of thousands of claimants. In the face of this daunting litigation, and given the “broad grant of authority” 26 Case: 12-30136 Document: 00512106986 Page: 27 Date Filed: 01/09/2013 No. 12-30136 to the district court, we perceive no error in those aspects of the court’s management of the MDL that are involved in this case. In re Air Crash Disaster, 549 F.2d at 1013. The decision to create pleading bundles or to separate claims for relief was well within the district court’s discretion. This managerial framework did not cause a de facto dismissal of the Center’s civil penalty claims. Rather, as noted above, those claims were dismissed at the Center’s own insistence by demanding a final judgment for purposes of appeal. We therefore find no merit in the Center’s challenge to the district court’s case management orders.