Document: 523 U.S. 26118 S.Ct. 95140 L.Ed.2d 62 LEXECON INC. et al., Petitionersv.MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH al. No. 96-1482. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 10, 1997. Decided March 3, 1998. Syllabus * Petitioners, a law and economics consulting firm one its principals (collectively, Lexecon), were defendants in class action brought against Charles Keating American Continental Corporation connection with failure Lincoln Savings Loan. It other actions arising out that transferred for pretrial proceedings to District Arizona under 28 U.S.C. §1407(a), which authorizes Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer civil common issues fact "to any district coordinated or consolidated proceedings,'' but provides "shall'' remand such original "at before conclusion proceedings.'' Before ended, plaintiffs Lexecon reached "resolution,'' claims dismissed. Subsequently, this diversity Northern Illinois respondent firms (hereinafter Milberg Cotchett), claiming several torts, including defamation, from firms' conduct as counsel plaintiffs. Cotchett moved for, ordered, §1407(a) Arizona. After remaining parties litigation final settlement, refer case back Illinois. The filed countermotion requesting invoke §1404(a) "transfer'' itself trial. With only defamation claim after summary judgment ruling, court assigned trial denied Lexecon's motion request remand. Ninth Circuit then petition mandamus, refusing vacate self-assignment order require because would have opportunity obtain relief direct appeal. won claim, again appealed order. affirmed ground permitting transferee assign upon completion work was not consistent statutory language conducive efficiency. Held: A conducting pursuant has no authority Pp. ___-___. (a) Two sources ostensible Milberg's espousal are explicitly authorized assignments Rule 14(b), it issued reliance rulemaking authority; §1407(a)'s limitations court's "coordinated consolidated'' "pretrial proceedings'' raise obvious bar transferee's retention §1404. Beyond point, however, textual pointers reverse direction, §1407 proceedings, obligates pending originating when, at latest, those end. Panel's instruction comes terms mandatory "shall,'' normally creates an obligation impervious judicial discretion. Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 482, 485, 67 428, 430, 91 L.Ed. 436 (1947). Reading statute whole, give effect plain command, see Estate Cowart Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 469, 476, 112 2589, 2594-2595, 120 379 (1992), even if will longstanding practice rule, Metropolitan Stevedore Co. Rambo, 515 291, 115 2144, 132 226 (1995). (b) None additional arguments based statute's legislative history can unsettle §1407's straightforward imposing responsibility remand, bars recognizing power consequently entails invalidity 14(b). (c) errs arguing remedy be omitted harmless error doctrine. That strict requirement interest too substantial left without is attested by congressional discretion faced objection violation. mandate lose all meaning party who continuously objected uncorrected categorical violation could end day. Caterpillar Inc. Lewis, 519 ----, 117 467, 136 437 (1996), distinguished. 102 F.3d 1524, reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion Court, unanimous except insofar SCALIA, did join Part II-C. Michael K. Kellogg, Petitioners. Jerold S. Solovy, Chicago, IL, respondents. Justice SOUTER Court.* 1 imposes duty Ibid. issue here whether may We hold authority. 2 In 1992, petitioners, Inc., firm, respondents, Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach (Milberg) Cotchett, Illston Pitre (Cotchett), malicious prosecution, abuse process, tortious interference, commercial disparagement defamation. suit arose prior violations securities racketeering laws. also defendant, charged giving federal state banking regulators inaccurate misleading reports about financial condition subsidiary Along Savings, Judge Bilby Arizona, where matters so known litigation. over, what they termed dismissed August 1992. 3 charging terminated favor when clients voluntarily their meritless, amounting nothing more, according Lexecon, than vendetta. When these allegations came attention Bilby, he stating his understanding resolution agreement between 1529, n. (C.A.9 1996). Bilby's characterization being markedly odds instant action, Circuit. 4 joined seeking consolidation Although judge entered recusal had taken himself issue, nonetheless renewed transfer. 5 ordered early June 1993 Roll, noting "share questions yet unapproved settlement involving Touche Ross, investor MDL-834.'' App. 18. observed "i) massive document depository located ii) appeal [describing dismissal litigation] MDL-834 relevant claims.'' Prior dispositive mentioned dismissed, closed down. 6 November 1993, Roll prosecution process claims, applying "heightened pleading standard,'' 845 F.Supp. 1377, 1383 (D.Ariz.1993). remaining, deferred discovery, during time 1994. 7 1994, Illinois, thus heeding point 14(d), " [t]he reluctant absent suggestion court.'' opposed discovery still incomplete decision motions well. 8 asked Again requested §1404 transfer, ruling once more. On April 24, 1995, granted Milberg, same counterclaims. 884 1388, 1397 (D.Ariz.1995). made Federal Civil Procedure 54(b). exercise 54(b) discretion, contest enter Cotchett's favor. 7, request. 9 meantime, trial, simultaneously §1407(a). sought immediate review last two rulings filing mandamus argument, majority panel, over dissent Kozinski, requests ruled though "not prepared say [Lexecon's] contentions lack merit'' went far note conflict "what appears clear [of §1404]'' Weiss, 95-70380, 1995 WL 432395 (C.A.9, July 21, 1995), p. 4. simply another day, relying assumption appeal: immediately along event petitioners merits [at trial].'' Id., 3. 10 Trial surviving forward ending denial matter challenged entry Cotchett. took exception jurisdiction (as distinct venue) pursued 11 divided panel affirmed, 14 appellate decisions support Court's refusal §1404(a). F.3d, 1532-1535. While indicated efficiency, Kozinski dissented, texts §§1407(a) 1404(a) presumption plaintiff's choice forum. certiorari decide does permit entertain keep II 12 defending majority, quarters. First, sanctioned rule §1407(f). 14(b) [e]ach been shall remanded transferor unless §1406.'' Thus, 39,228 cases September 30, 279 3,787 ultimately requiring retained courts them. Administrative Office States, L. Mecham, Business Courts: Report Director, 32. gone challenge, see, e.g., 15 A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Practice §3866, 619 (2d ed. 1986) Cooper); Trangsrud, Joinder Alternatives Mass Tort Litigation, 70 Cornell L.Rev. 779, 809 (1985); Levy, Complex Courts, 40 Ford. 41, 64-65 (1972), treated transfers approval, beginning Second Circuit's Pfizer, Lord, 447 F.2d 122, 124-125 (C.A.2 1971) (per curiam) (upholding MDL 15(d), precursor 14(b)). See, re Fine Paper Antitrust 685 810, 820, (C.A.3 1982); Air Crash Disaster Detroit Metro. Airport, 737 391, 393-394 (E.D.Mich.1989); Viatron Computer Sys. Corp., 86 F.R.D. 431, 432 (D.C.Mass.1980). 13 second source portion text multidistrict itself: "When more different districts, limits "pretrial,'' alone If "consolidated'' authorized, there argument some many contemplated, need "coordinated,'' narrow limitation apparent. certainly true purpose literally litigating identical evidence, fair resolve "coordinated'' earlier sharing core debacle, judges much evidence found overlapping considered. following respond pleadings limited prospects coordination, surely eliminate Hence, preclude (like request) affects it. 16 Likewise, first blush, "pretrial'' suggests reason motion. Section justice convenience witnesses. See Such typically resolved Cooper 620, classic motions. 17 run course. 18 "Each previously terminated.'' (proviso application omitted). 19 absence indication might circumstances neither "terminated'' nor subject obligation, then, stands flatly reading phrase broadly reach literal limits, allowing trump provision duty. we do our job doing (1995) ("Age antidote inconsistency statute.'' (quoting Brown Gardner, 513 115, 552, 557, 130 462 (1994))). 20 As saw it, expansive view pretrial'' uncompromising disappeared merely apparent conflict, real one. "focus'' said constituting defining authority, circumscribing powers 1533. presses observing not, indeed, apply courts, concerned solely duties, whereas §1407(b), addressed says But analysis fails persuade, very rejects central tenet interpretation, considered parts construing To emphasize §1407(b) addressing ignore necessary consequence court: conclusively thwarts capacity obey unconditional command 21 like use blinders underlies majority's 14(c), court, directly Panel, sua sponte conditions fulfilled, Appeals, particularly faulted failing file court.1 This analysis, too, unpersuasive; just ignores places later read statute. §1407(f) (express rules statute). B 22 proffers further overlooking tension broad obligation. relies subtle limiting "previously terminated'' period. sure, indicates meant ceremonial orders already concluded judgment, say, dismissal. imperative inapplicable self-assigned §1404, "terminates'' venue depends §1407. character disappears, argues, strictures fall away well, relieving case. trouble creative though, manifests subtlety. 1407(a) speaks imbuing new distinctive character, "civil actions'' "actions.'' acquired personality, must excused ordering straightforward, ready hand, interpretation business getting metaphysical. 23 Second, tries draw inference subsection authorize well proceedings. Subsection (h) that, 24 [n]otwithstanding provisions section 1404 (f) section, consolidate consent parties, both purposes 4C Clayton Act.'' 25 fastens introductory overriding "provisions (f),'' otherwise, respectively, limit transferring division brought,'' §1404(a), prescribing inconsistent Acts Congress,'' reasoning, overrides required cited otherwise remainder authorizing certain Act court. runs since override §1407, matters. reasoning fallacious, however. Subsections independent Panel; each apparently written stand own feet. exclude (a), (h). 26 valueless however; ammunition Lexecon. For demonstrate Congress knew how distinguish enactment Apr. 29, 1968, 82 Stat. 109, preceded (h), Sept. 1976, §303, 90 1394, 1396, distinguishes generally confirmation conclusion, grounds, subjects subsections include orders.2 C 27 There is, finally, position beyond history, turns question us, cites House bill became addresses saying [o]f course, 1404, providing changes generally, available instances desirable.'' H.R. Rep. No.1130, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., (1968) Rep.), Brief Respondents 25. change §1407(a); §1404(a),3 grant motion, guidance. anything us here, tends confirm scope spoke continued vitality this: 29 "The proposed stages affect place possibility statutes. 30 ..... 31 requires close therefore, Rep., 3-4. 32 comments bill's sponsors suggest (before addition h) Litigation: Hearings 3815 159 Subcommittee Improvements Machinery Senate Comm. Judiciary, 1st Sess. pt. 2, 110 (1967) (Sen. Tydings) (" [W]hen deposition completed, trial''). Both Reports stated amend determined should S.Rep. 454, (1967). 33 sum, none raised correct make self-assignments desirable preserving (to degree so), proper resolving remains floor Congress. Amchem Products, Windsor, 521 2231, ---------, 138 689 (1997); Finley 490 545, 556 [109 2003, 2010-2011, 104 593] (1989).4 III 34 goes remedy, argues posits distinction category erroneously litigated (absent waiver) never laid governing statute, Olberding Central 346 338, 340, 74 83, 85, 98 39 (1953), category, plaintiff originally chosen litigate forum unwillingly carried, first, reversal necessary; affirmance possible right violated whose discretionary decision. Since consistently general requirements §1391, falls within escape rights prejudicially affected, §2111. Assuming drawn, think bears closer analogy precluded 35 assumes kind entitled respect accordance categorically initial why equally bound (and special panels) choice. former interests latter ought recognized creating substantial. instance substantiality protected described render either allow defiance become justification. Accordingly, agree under, §1391(a) (diversity "may . '') sufficient establish violation, 43 (citing Olberding, supra), contained suffice significance stage completed. 36 Nor recent contrary.5 case, got jurisdictional defect (a complete diversity) cured subsequent events. (failure comply §1441(a) fit adjudication removal filed) "remained unerasable case,'' U.S., S.Ct., 475, sense period, entered. one, inasmuch continuing Caterpillar, untimely compliance. held considerations "finality, efficiency economy'' trumped error, 476. permissible exists retains significance. day.6 37 Appeals reversed, opinion. 38 So ordered. syllabus constitutes part Reporter Decisions reader. Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. SCALIA joins opinion, stopped short expressly inferring waiver unsound. 14(c)(i) 14(d) extraordinary (The reads, court.''). Therefore, waive §1406(b), precludes mere Panel. moreover, failed; assigning exercising purported recognize. Under rules, chance thing. related argument. tempting incompatibility confirmed appropriate circumstance unable that. noted, statutes; are. supra. Because find granting address permits self-transfer given district.'' brief rejecting courts' applied prospectively Chevron Oil Huson, 404 97, 106-107, 92 349, 355-356, 296 (1971). presented below, Defendants 95-16403 (CA 9), petitioners' certiorari, Opposition unnecessary consider here. survived propriety go forward; outside certiorari. 14.1(a) ("Only set forth petition, fairly included therein, Court''). until reconsider perfectly and, matter, formal reflection

Category: 8