ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: Purported class defendants move under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize this litigation in the
Responding defendants/2 oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed,/3 we are not persuaded that centralization is necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions contain common factual questions, inasmuch as all began as similar derivative actions brought in
The factual overlap among the actions is not surprising, given the highly similar complaints in each case. The Section 1407 motion seeks to centralize four actions removed from state court (where counsel for movants
We are not convinced that centralization will add any, much less any significant, efficiencies to this litigation. We have long held that our "primary purpose is not to divine the motives and strategies of the various litigants .... Nevertheless, where a Section 1407 motion appears intended to further the interests of particular counsel more than those of the statute, we would certainly find less favor with it." In re:
We need not reach the issue of precisely why these cases are now here before us. This litigation involves only four actions pending in two districts before two judges in the same state. Where only a few actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. See In re:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied./5
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
* * *
1/ The motion for centralization initially included 33 actions, but 29 actions pending in the
2/ Kingsbridge Heights Receiver,
4/ Indeed, harassment of the courts and the general public also may be on
5/ Defendants' request for sanctions is denied.