Houston et al v. JTH Tax Inc

Filing 13

TRANSFER ORDER MDL No. 2324 transferring this case to the Northern District of Illinois. Signed by Kathryn H. Vratil, Acting Chairman, Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, on 4/23/12. (kpr)

Judge: Joan B. Gottschall
A TRUE COPY-ATTEST
Magistrate Judge: Sheila M. Finnegan
THOMAS G. BRUTON, CLERK
Case No. 12cv2960
By: s/ PAMELA J. GERINGER
Filed: 4/16/2012
DEPUTY CLERK
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN
on
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
April 23, 2012
IN RE: REFUND ANTICIPATION
LOAN LITIGATION

MDL No. 2334

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in all actions before the Panel
move to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant JTX Tax, Inc. d/b/a
Liberty Tax Services (Liberty) supports the motion as to the actions naming Liberty as defendant.
Defendants H&R Block, Inc.; HRB Tax Group, Inc.; H&R Block Services, Inc.; H&R Block
Enterprises, Inc.; and H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc. (collectively H&R Block) agree that
centralization of the actions against H&R Block in the Northern District of Illinois is appropriate, but
oppose inclusion of the actions naming Liberty in centralized proceedings.
This litigation currently consists of seven actions listed on Schedules A and B and pending
in four districts: one action against Liberty in each of the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Central
District of California, the Southern District of Florida, and the Northern District of Illinois; and one
action against H&R Block in each of the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Southern District of
Florida, and the Northern District of Illinois.1
No party disputes that, at least, centralization of the actions involving each respective
defendant group is appropriate. The actions as to each defendant group share factual questions
arising out of allegations that each defendant group employed deceptive, fraudulent, and unlawful
business practices in the marketing, enrollment, and administration of their refund anticipation loans
(RALs). Centralization of the actions against each defendant group will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

*

Judge John G. Heyburn II and Judge Barbara S. Jones took no part in the decision of this

matter.
1

A fourth action against H&R Block was pending in the Central District of California, but
that action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Additionally, the parties have notified the Panel that an additional four actions are pending
against Liberty in three districts, and an additional five actions are pending against H&R Block in five
districts. These actions are potential tag-along actions. See Rule 7.1, R.P.J.P.M.L.

-2Moving plaintiffs, however, seek to centralize the actions against both Liberty and H&R
Block in a single MDL. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that the
creation of a single MDL would not be appropriate for these actions. There appears to be minimal
factual overlap between the RAL products offered by H&R Block and Liberty. No action names both
Liberty and H&R Block as defendants, and plaintiffs do not allege that these defendant groups acted
in concert. Nor do they allege there is industry-wide conduct, as was the case in In re Checking
Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F. Supp. 2d. 1333, 1335 (J.P.M.L. 2009). We find, therefore, that
Section 1407 centralization of the actions involving Liberty and the actions involving H&R Block
together would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. See In re Credit Card Payment Prot. Plan Mktg. & Sales
Practices Litig., 753 F. Supp. 2d. 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (denying centralization of actions against
different credit card issuers alleging deceptive marketing of debt cancellation and/or suspension
products).
We are persuaded that the Northern District of Illinois is the most appropriate transferee
district for both MDLs. This district is supported by all parties and it is convenient and centrally
located. An action against each of Liberty and H&R Block is pending in this district. The parties
argued, and we are persuaded that, centralization of both MDLs before a single judge would provide
efficiencies, in that only one judge will be required to become familiar with the similar legal issues in
these cases.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the four actions listed
on Schedule A are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
under MDL No. 2334.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MDL No. 2334, originally named IN RE: Refund
Anticipation Loan Litigation, is renamed as follows: IN RE: Liberty Refund Anticipation Loan
Litigation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the three actions listed on
Schedule B are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
under MDL No. 2373. MDL No. 2373 shall be named IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation
Loan Litigation.

-3-

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Kathryn H. Vratil
Acting Chairman
W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Marjorie O. Rendell

Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer

IN RE: LIBERTY REFUND ANTICIPATION
LOAN LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of Arkansas
Zaneta Houston, et al. v. JTH Tax Inc., C.A. No. 4:11-00858
Central District of California
Charles Madubuike, et al. v. JTH Tax Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:11-09580
Southern District of Florida
Pamela Patterson v. JTH Tax, Inc., C.A. No. 0:11-62472
Northern District of Illinois
Timothy Rowden v. JTH Tax, Inc., C.A. No. 1:11-08233

MDL No. 2334

IN RE: H&R BLOCK REFUND ANTICIPATION
LOAN LITIGATION

SCHEDULE B

Eastern District of Arkansas
Sandy K. Morton, et al. v. H&R Block Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:11-00859
Southern District of Florida
William Wimbley, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-24159
Northern District of Illinois
Norma Molina-Servin v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-08244

MDL No. 2373