Class Action Defense Cases-In re Volkswagen/Audi Warranty: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Joint Defense/Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Selects District Of Massachusetts As Transferee Court

Judicial Panel Agrees Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is Warranted for Class Actions But Rejects Defense and Plaintiff Recommendations for Request for and Grants Defense Motion for Centralization of Three Class Action Lawsuits After four class action lawsuits concerning vehicle extended warranties were filed against Volkswagen in California, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, defense and plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a joint motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Fosamax: Over Defense Objection Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Southern District of New York

Judicial Panel Rejects Defense Opposition to Motion for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Grants Motion for Centralization of Class Action Lawsuits in the Southern District of New York After 19 products liability lawsuits – many of them class action proceedings – were filed against various pharmaceutical companies arising out of the use of Fosamax, a prescription drug manufactured by Merck and used in the treatment of osteoporosis, several plaintiffs’ lawyers (apparently supported by plaintiffs in all pending actions) moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Digital Music: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Joint Plaintiff/Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Southern District of New York

Judicial Panel Finds Good Cause for Centralization of Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 as Requested by Defense and Plaintiffs Nine class action lawsuits were filed against Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Sony Corporation of America, Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc., Bertelsmann, Inc., Universal Music Group, Inc., Time Warner Inc., Warner Music Group Corp. and EMI Music North America (defendants), alleging “on behalf of purported classes of indirect purchasers, that the various defendants illegally conspired to artificially fix or maintain the prices of digitally formatted music offered for sale on the internet in violation of 1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Series 7: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense and Plaintiff Motions To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The District of the District of Columbia

Judicial Panel Agrees With Defense and Plaintiff Lawyers that Class Action Lawsuits Warranted Centralization for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 Nine class action lawsuits were filed across the United States against the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and Electronic Data Systems Corp., among others, alleging “breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, defamation, and tortious interference with contract and/or business relationships” arising out of “errors in scoring the Series 7 Broker Qualification Exam, a computerized qualifying test required for anyone employed by a securities firm that wishes to register individuals as general securities representatives dealing with the public.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Seroquel: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Rejects Defense Opposition To Centralization Of Class Action Suits Involving Seroquel But Grants Co-Defense Request To Limit Order To AstraZeneca

Judicial Panel Grants Request for Pretrial Coordination of Products Liability Class Action Lawsuits Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 Over AstraZeneca Defense Objection but Grants Johnson & Johnson/Eli Lilly Defense Request to Separate and Remand Class Action Claims Against Them for Lack of Common Questions of Fact More than 120 federal court lawsuits, many of them class actions, against various pharmaceutical companies alleging that AstraZeneca’s Seroquel, an atypical antipsychotic medication, can cause diabetes and related disorders.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re InPhonic: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The District of the District of Columbia

Judicial Panel Grants Unopposed Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Centralization of Class Action Lawsuits Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against InPhonic in the District of Columbia, Illinois and New Jersey (followed by several tag-along suits) alleging violations of various state consumer protection statutes and common law claims, and – in some cases – violations of the Federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Int’l Air Transportation: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The Northern District of California

Judicial Panel Agrees with Plaintiffs and Defense that Putative Class Action Lawsuits Warrant Centralization Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Selects Northern District of California as Transferee Court At least 15 separate putative class action lawsuits were filed in at least 6 different federal courts in various states – followed by numerous tag-along actions – seeking to recover damages for alleged violations of antitrust laws arising out a purported conspiracy to fix prices on international passenger air travel to or from the United States.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Dep’t of Veteran Affairs: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation In The District of the District of Columbia

Judicial Panel Rejects Opposition to Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Grants Defense Motion for Centralization of Three Class Action Lawsuits On May 3, 2006, a laptop computer and external hard drive was stolen from the home of an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, resulting in the loss of “the names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of approximately 26 million veterans and active duty military personnel.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases—In re Novartis: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Defense Motion To Centralize Two Employment Law Class Action Lawsuits In The Southern District Of New York

Judicial Panel Grants Unopposed Defense Request for Pretrial Coordination of Two Class Action Complaints Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Plaintiffs filed two class action lawsuits in federal court against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (NPC), Novartis Corp., Novartis Finance Corp., and Novartis Services, Inc., alleging violations of state and federal labor laws concerning compensation for overtime; specifically, the complaints alleged that defendants had misclassified NPC sales representatives as exempt from overtime pay. In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litig., 460 F.Supp.2d 1382 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 2006). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defense attorneys moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) to centralize the lawsuits for pretrial purposes in the Southern District of New York, where one of the lawsuits was pending. Id. The motion was unopposed. The Panel agreed with defense attorneys that centralization was warranted even though only two class action lawsuits had been filed, and agreed further – in accord with the agreement of the parties – that the Southern District of New York was the appropriate transferee court. Id.

NOTE: This transfer order illustrates (1) that Section 1407 does not require a minimum number of lawsuits be on file in order to warrant transfer, and (2) that the Judicial Panel independently determines whether centralization is warranted and, if so, the appropriate transferee court. Despite the agreement of the parties, the Judicial Panel explained that it selected the Southern District of New York based on its independent evaluation:

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Edward D. Jones: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Denies Defense And Plaintiff Motion To Coordinate Class Action Employment Law Lawsuits

Multidistrict Litigation Judicial Panel Concludes Centralization Under Section 1407 not Warranted Three separate class action lawsuits against Edward D. Jones & Co. seeking overtime pay. The lawsuits were filed in the Central and Northern Districts of California, and the Western District of Pennsylvania. Two motions were filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) seeking to coordinate the litigation for pretrial purposes – one by the Pennsylvania plaintiff, and one by the common defendant, Edward Jones.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized