Quevedo v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Filing 7

CONDITIONAL REAMAND ORDER (Finalized) MDL No. 2286, action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s). CASE REOPENED. (Gonzalez, R)

Case MDL No. 2286 Document 1085 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION

MDL No. 2286

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER

The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand
to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), is appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to
its/their respective transferor court(s).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for
filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with
the Clerk of the Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the
Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for
the Southern District of California with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to
be remanded.

FOR THE PANEL:
Dec 01, 2020

John W. Nichols
Clerk of the Panel

Case MDL No. 2286 Document 1085 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 5

IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION

MDL No. 2286

SCHEDULE FOR CRO
TRANSFEREE
DIST DIV. C.A.NO.
CAS 3 16−03025
CAS 3 17−01242

TRANSFEROR
DIST DIV. C.A.NO.
ALN 7 16−01353
ALN 7 17−00865

CAS

3

17−01015

CAC

2

17−01534

CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

14−00381
13−02882
13−02010
15−00939
14−00382
14−01337
14−02881
15−00503

CAE
CAE
CAN
FLM
FLM
FLM
FLM
FLM

1
2
3
3
6
6
6
6

13−01904
13−02008
13−00757
15−00202
14−00024
14−00380
14−01856
15−00108

CAS

3

15−02943

FLM

6

15−01878

CAS

3

14−02467

FLM

8

14−00845

CAS
CAS
CAS

3
3
3

14−01559
14−01960
15−00170

FLM
FLM
FLM

8
8
8

14−01349
14−01806
14−02907

CAS

3

15−01644

FLM

8

15−01536

CAS
CAS
CAS

3
3
3

17−00504
17−00975
18−00019

FLM
FLM
FLM

8
8
8

17−00444
17−00736
17−02966

CAS

3

18−00483

FLM

8

17−02967

CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS

3
3
3
3

15−01051
13−01517
14−00240
14−00242

FLN
FLS
FLS
FLS

1
0
0
0

15−00054
12−62370
13−62713
13−62715

CAS

3

17−00976

FLS

0

17−60506

CAS
CAS

3
3

17−02522
13−01519

FLS
FLS

0
2

17−62138
13−14072

CAS

3

14−00861

GAN

1

14−00351

CAS
CAS

3
3

17−00115
11−02368

GAN
ILN

1
1

16−02588
11−03104

CASE CAPTION
Eaton et al v. Midland Credit Management Inc
Prince v. Midland Funding LLC
Natalie Huffman et al v. Midland Credit
Managment, Inc.
Quevedo v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Roy v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Doherty v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Farley v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Cooper v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Jones v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Love v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Hall v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Rumbough v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.
et al
Moya et al v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc.
Gruver v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Valliere v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Howard v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Permenter v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc.
Lefler v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Little v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Christian v. Credit One Bank N.A. et al
Lauderdale v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc.
Cray v. Midland Credit Management Inc
Ferdarko v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Akers v. Midland Funding, LLC et al
Santamaria v. Midland Funding, LLC et al
Ramcharitar et al v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc.
Negroni vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Manasse v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Gilmore v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
et al
Gilbert v. Midland Funding LLC
Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC

Case MDL No. 2286 Document 1085 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 5
CAS

3

14−02506

ILN

1

14−07165

CAS

3

15−01712

ILN

1

15−06109

CAS

3

14−01760

INS

1

14−00826

CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS

3
3
3
3
3

14−01502
14−01386
15−02477
15−02282
16−01362

MIE
MIE
MN
MOE
MOW

2
2
0
4
4

14−11783
14−12083
15−03800
15−00030
16−00319

CAS

3

14−01336

NJ

3

14−01817

CAS

3

14−01893

NJ

3

14−02880

CAS

3

13−01478

NYN

5

13−00050

CAS

3

14−00689

NYW

1

14−00089

CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

14−02151
15−00222
14−01355
14−02909
16−01977
17−00605
14−01950
17−00471
17−00473
17−00472
17−00475
17−00476
17−00482
17−00479
17−00483

NYW
NYW
NYW
NYW
NYW
OR
PAE
PAE
PAE
PAE
PAE
PAE
PAE
PAE
PAE

1
1
6
6
6
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

14−00668
15−00042
14−06117
14−06579
16−06484
16−02329
14−02075
17−00352
17−00359
17−00411
17−00666
17−00667
17−00668
17−00669
17−00670

CAS

3

17−00784

TNW

2

17−02160

CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

15−00773
15−00774
15−00775
15−00776
15−00777
15−00783
15−00785
15−00723
15−00724
15−00725
15−00726
15−00728
15−00729
15−01784
15−01785

TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

14−00414
14−00481
14−00578
14−00841
14−00843
15−00045
15−00048
15−00135
15−00136
15−00138
15−00139
15−00140
15−00141
15−00218
15−00219

Andrews v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
et al
Opposed 11/30/2020
Arora v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et
al
DOTSON v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC.
Bretz v. Midland Credit Management Inc
Smith et al v. Midland Funding, LLC et al
Johnson v. Encore Capital Group, Inc. et al
Basham v. Midland Funding, LLC et al
Cockman v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Weisberger v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc.
Benarroch v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc.
Goetz v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
McDonald v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc.
Shearer v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Glover v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Wentworth v. Midland Funding LLC
King v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Pugh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Spencer v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Hill v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Boyd et al v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Miller et al v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Colacchia et al v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Duval v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Cruz v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Avesian v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Morris v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Richino−Brown v. Midland Funding LLC et al
Covington v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack V Midland Credit Management
Mack V Midland Credit Management
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Case MDL No. 2286 Document 1085 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 5
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

15−01788
15−01789
15−01790
15−01796
15−01797
15−01798
15−01799
15−01801
15−01803
15−01805
15−01807
15−01806
15−01808
15−01809
15−01810
15−01811
15−02226
15−02228
15−02229
15−02231
15−02250
15−02251
15−02252
15−02253
15−02337
15−02333
15−02331
15−02332
15−02330
15−02335
15−02418
15−02421
15−02422
15−02423
15−02525
15−02527
15−02528
15−02529
15−02639
15−02641
15−02643
15−02644
15−02645
15−02646
15−02647
15−02648
15−02649
15−02650
15−02651

TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

15−00234
15−00235
15−00251
15−00252
15−00306
15−00309
15−00317
15−00318
15−00329
15−00330
15−00443
15−00444
15−00466
15−00467
15−00479
15−00481
15−00607
15−00610
15−00611
15−00612
15−00622
15−00623
15−00629
15−00630
15−00645
15−00646
15−00647
15−00648
15−00649
15−00650
15−00664
15−00665
15−00666
15−00667
15−00685
15−00686
15−00687
15−00688
15−00711
15−00712
15−00721
15−00722
15−00733
15−00734
15−00740
15−00741
15−00754
15−00755
15−00756

Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Case MDL No. 2286 Document 1085 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 5
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS
CAS

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

15−02653
15−02822
15−02823
15−02827
15−02830
15−02831
15−02832
15−02834
15−02835
15−02858
16−00061
16−00062
16−00131
16−00132
16−00265
16−00266
16−00267
16−00269
16−00271
16−00272
16−00273
16−00274
16−00334
16−00335
16−00336
16−00340
16−00341
16−00342
16−00343
16−00350
16−00351
16−00352
16−00353
16−00354
16−00356
16−00357
16−00358
16−00359
16−00360
16−00361
16−00362
16−00363
15−00234

TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXE
TXN

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3

15−00757
15−00769
15−00770
15−00771
15−00772
15−00774
15−00775
15−00776
15−00777
15−00797
15−00832
15−00833
15−00834
15−00835
15−00862
15−00863
15−00864
15−00865
15−00871
15−00872
15−00873
15−00874
16−00002
16−00003
16−00004
16−00005
16−00006
16−00007
16−00008
16−00009
16−00010
16−00012
16−00013
16−00014
16−00015
16−00016
16−00018
16−00020
16−00021
16−00022
16−00023
16−00024
14−03661

Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Gaddis v. Midland Credit Management Inc

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6377 Page 1 of 18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., TELEPHONE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
LITIGATION

Case No. 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)
AMENDED ORDER SUGGESTING
REMAND1

14
15
16
17
18
19

In this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), the motion for summary judgment deadline

20

has lapsed without a party filing such motion and there does not appear to be any pending

21

common discovery to be produced. See Doc. No. 827. Accordingly, the Court sua

22

sponte finds that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings have been exhausted.

23

For the reasons set forth below and pursuant to United States Judicial Panel on

24

Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel or JPML”) Rule 10.1(b)(i), the Court respectfully

25
26
27
28

1

The Court issues this amended order for the sole purpose of addressing clerical errors regarding the list
of member cases at the end of this order at the request of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. There are no substantive changes to the original order.
1
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6378 Page 2 of 18

1

SUGGESTS that the Panel REMAND all member cases within this MDL to their

2

originating transferor districts.

3

I. BACKGROUND

4

The member Plaintiffs in this MDL generally allege that Defendants Midland

5

Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Encore Capital Group, Inc.

6

(collectively, “Defendants”), violated the rights of plaintiffs and other unnamed class

7

members by illegally making debt collection calls to them, through use of an automated

8

dialing system, on their cell phones without the debtors’ consent in violation of the

9

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”).2 See In re:

10

Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (U.S.

11

Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2011); see also Doc. No. 1.3 Originating in 2011, the MDL was

12

initially comprised of four member actions, all purported class actions. See Doc. No. 1 at

13

3. Two actions were originally filed in the Southern District of California: Robinson v.

14

Midland Funding, LLC, No. 10-cv-02261 (S.D. Cal.) and Tovar v. Midland Credit

15

Management, No. 10-cv-02600 (S.D. Cal.). The other two actions were filed in the

16

Northern District of Illinois: Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 11-cv-03104 (N.D.

17

Ill.) and Scardina v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 11-cv-03149 (N.D. Ill.). See

18

id. This MDL now consists of approximately sixty-five4 member actions, transferred

19

from district courts throughout the United States.

20

In December 2016, the Court entered an amended order granting final approval to

21

the nationwide class-action settlement between then-lead Plaintiffs, class members, and

22
23
24
25

2

The TCPA prohibits making “any call . . . using any automatic telephone dialing system . . . to any
telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

3

26

All citations refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system. All docket references refer to the
docket of this action unless otherwise noted.

27

4

28

This number does not include all of pro se Plaintiff David E. Mack’s 106 related member cases. The
Court previously sua sponte consolidated his 106 member cases under one case number, 15-cv-723MMA (MDD). See Doc. No. 572.
2
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6379 Page 3 of 18

1

Defendants—for a class period from November 2, 2006 through August 31, 2014. See

2

Doc. No. 434. The settlement resolved only eight member cases. See id. at 25. Several

3

member Plaintiffs opted out of the class and other member Plaintiffs alleged receiving

4

autodialed telephone calls from Defendants on or after September 1, 2014.

5

In October 2017, Plaintiffs Curtis Bentley and William Baker filed a consolidated

6

amended complaint with class allegations involving calls after September 1, 2014. See

7

Doc. No. 538. Defendants answered the consolidated amended complaint in December

8

2017. See Doc. No. 549. The Court struck Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims

9

from the Consolidated Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 569, and stayed “all non-TCPA

10

causes of action in all member cases pending remand of those cases to their original

11

districts or resolution of this MDL,” Doc. No. 571 at 2.

12

In January 2018, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to every member case

13

complaint to initiate discovery. See Doc. No. 562. Further, at this Court’s suggestion,

14

the Panel suspended JPML Rule 7.1(a) to bar further tag along cases from being

15

transferred into the MDL. See JPML MDL No. 2286, Doc. No. 1074. Following an

16

initial case management conference in April 2018, see Doc. No. 587, the Court ordered

17

the parties to complete their Rule 26(f) conference and submit their Rule 26(f)(3)

18

discovery plan, see Doc. No. 591. In August 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to

19

implement a plaintiff questionnaire, a protective order, and to provide for certain

20

preliminary discovery. See Doc. No. 603. The Magistrate Judge ordered any objecting

21

Plaintiff to file objections to the questionnaire, see Doc. No. 604, and no Plaintiff

22

objected, see Doc. No. 608 at 1. In September 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an

23

order granting the joint motion implementing the questionnaire process and production

24

from Defendants. See id.

25

In December 2018, the Court permitted lead Plaintiffs Bentley and Baker to file a

26

Second Consolidated Complaint and to add Emir Fetai as an additional lead Plaintiff. See

27

Doc. Nos. 650, 651. In January 2019, the Court ordered lead Plaintiffs Baker and

28
3
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6380 Page 4 of 18

1

Bentley to arbitration and stayed their individual member cases. See Doc. No. 669 at 17–

2

18. However, the Court allowed Fetai and his putative class to proceed. See id. at 18.

3

In June 2019, the Magistrate Judge found that sufficient time had passed for the

4

Plaintiff questionnaire process to be completed and moved to the deposition phase of

5

discovery. See Doc. No. 689 at 1. The Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to file a joint

6

status report regarding discovery and expected “confirmation that the questionnaire and

7

responsive discovery process [was] complete.” Id. at 1. He also ordered the parties to

8

meet and confer regarding a joint discovery plan and a proposed scheduling order for this

9

phase of discovery, a summary judgment motion deadline, and class certification motion

10

deadline. See id. at 2.

11

On September 4, 2019 and following the filing of the status reports, the Magistrate

12

Judge issued an order setting discovery deadlines and limitations on discovery. See Doc.

13

No. 702. Among other things, the order provided for the deposition of lead Plaintiff in

14

the class action by October 25, 2019; the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendants by lead

15

Plaintiff regarding calling technologies and practices after September 1, 2014, by

16

November 22, 2019; the issuance of subpoenas to cellular carriers by individual

17

Plaintiffs; certain meet and confer requirements regarding other depositions pertinent to

18

the post-September 1, 2014 Plaintiffs; and depositions and disputes regarding pre-

19

September 1, 2014 Plaintiffs. See id. at 8–9. Additionally, to address the lack of a

20

procedure for Plaintiffs having concerns regarding Plaintiff-specific discovery provided

21

by Defendants, the Magistrate Judge ordered Defendants to file a report containing the

22

list of member cases alleging calls before September 1, 2014; indicating the counsel

23

responsible for responding to individual Plaintiffs to discuss discovery concerns and

24

settlement; and indicating the counsel responsible for responding to individual Plaintiffs

25

regarding “[P]laintiff-specific discovery provided by Defendants during the questionnaire

26

process.” Id. at 7. The Court ordered Plaintiffs who remained dissatisfied with

27

Defendants’ production to bring the discovery dispute by December 2, 2019 and further

28

ordered the parties to meet and confer “regarding calling technologies and practices
4
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 5 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6381 Page 5 of 18

1

during relevant time periods preceding September 1, 2014.” Id. at 9. Finally, the court

2

provided that “[a]ny motion for class certification and any motion for summary judgment

3

must be filed no later than January 24, 2020.” Id.

4

On December 16, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued two discovery orders. See

5

Doc. Nos. 725, 726. In the first order, Plaintiffs Nicholas Martin and Jeremy Johnson,

6

sought to depose Defendants regarding calling practices and policies prior to September

7

1, 2014. See Doc. No. 725 at 1. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion; limited the

8

deposition to the periods January 1, 2008 through November 24, 2008, and January 1,

9

2013 through March 1, 2014; and ordered that the deposition occur no later than January

10

31, 2020—provided that Plaintiffs’ counsel made arrangements for other relevant

11

Plaintiffs to attend in person or remotely and suggest questions to counsel taking the

12

deposition. See id. at 2–3. Plaintiffs took the deposition on January 28, 2020. See Doc.

13

No. 803 at 5. In the second order, lead Plaintiff Fetai and fourteen fellow member

14

Plaintiffs sought to depose two third parties—Alfred Collins and Noble Systems—and

15

Defendants regarding calling technologies and practices for calls made prior to

16

September 4, 2014. See Doc. Nos. 715 at 2, 7; Doc. No 726 at 1. The Magistrate Judge

17

granted the order. See Doc. No. 726. The court allowed for the deposition of Defendants

18

as provided in the first order. See id. at 5–7. The Court further ordered that “corporate

19

deposition of Noble Systems Corporation must be obtained no later than January 31,

20

2020 and the deposition of Mr. Collins must be obtained no later than February 14,

21

2020.” Id. at 6. In addition to setting expert discovery deadlines, the Magistrate Judge

22

provided that “[a]ny motion for class certification and any motion for summary judgment

23

must be filed no later than June 12, 2020.” Id. at 7. However, “[t]he depositions of

24

Noble Systems and Mr. Collins did not proceed[,] and no party asked that the dates for

25

those depositions be extended.” Doc. No. 811 at 6.

26

On January 7, 2020, Plaintiffs Martin and Johnson and Defendants stipulated that

27

the deposition of Defendants regarding pre-September 1, 2014 calling practices and

28

policies would not be limited as provided in the court’s order (Doc. No. 725) but would
5
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 6 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6382 Page 6 of 18

1

cover the entire pre-September 1, 2014 period. See Doc. No. 745. On January 31, 2020,

2

the Magistrate Judge granted in part Plaintiff Arora’s motion to compel additional

3

production from Defendants regarding call recording policies and proceedings. See Doc.

4

No. 754 at 3, 4; see also Doc. Nos. 737, 741, 753.

5

On April 27, 2020, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs Martin and Johnson and

6

Defendants’ joint motion stating their agreement that certain written discovery requests

7

were deemed served on Defendants, who agreed to accept service while reserving their

8

rights to object under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Doc. No. 773 at 3; Doc.

9

No. 776 at 2.

10

No party filed a motion for class certification or motion for summary judgment.

11

No party moved to extend the time to file such motions. However, on June 12, 2020,

12

lead Plaintiff Fetai and Defendants filed a joint notice of settlement. See Doc. No. 780.

13

On June 29, 2020, the Court held a telephonic status conference to determine the status of

14

the MDL as to the remaining member cases. See Doc. Nos. 782, 789. After the status

15

conference, the Magistrate Judge ordered that “any discovery dispute regarding the April

16

27, 2020 discovery order (Doc. No. 776) be brought to the Court’s attention on or before

17

July 15, 2020” and “[a]ny request for additional discovery must also be filed on or before

18

July 15, 2020.” Doc. No. 793 at 2.

19

On July 2, 2020, in response to a joint motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed

20

Bentley’s and Baker’s member cases. See Doc. No. 795. In the same order, the Court

21

also dismissed Fetai’s claims based on lack of jurisdiction. See id.

22

Meanwhile, Arora sought leave to obtain discovery and take depositions. See Doc.

23

No. 790. Specifically, Arora sought “to take a deposition of Noble Systems regarding

24

Noble dialers utilized by Defendants prior to Sept 1, 2014 and, if necessary, also

25

propound written discovery on it.” Id. at 2. Martin, Johnson, and other member

26

Plaintiffs then sought scheduling order changes and further discovery. First, they moved

27

to amend the scheduling order to extend fact discovery, expert discovery, Daubert

28

motion, and dispositive motion deadlines. See Doc. No. 801. Second, they and
6
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 7 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6383 Page 7 of 18

1

Defendants filed a joint motion to determine a discovery dispute. See Doc. No. 802.

2

Plaintiffs sought leave to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for

3

production. See id. Third, Plaintiffs also sought “leave to take the Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants’ dialer providers Noble, Aspect (f/k/a Davox) and

5

Livevox, Midland employees involved with its dialers Mike Aronson and Kevin

6

McLaughlin, whistleblower Alfred Collins, and individuals listed in Collins’ complaint

7

against Midland.” Doc. No. 803 at 4.

8
9

The Magistrate Judge ruled on these motions in two orders. See Doc. Nos. 811,
812. In the first order, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the

10

scheduling order because Plaintiffs “were not diligent in pursuing fact or expert

11

discovery, in seeking extensions of deadlines or in seeking clarification of the Court’s

12

Orders regarding discovery.” Doc. No. 811 at 8. As to the summary judgment deadline

13

specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good

14

cause to extend the summary judgment deadline.” Id. at 9. “In light of the Court’s ruling

15

declining to extend the discovery deadline,” the Magistrate Judge denied Arora’s and

16

Martin, Johnson, and other member Plaintiffs’ motions requesting leave to take

17

depositions and discovery of third parties. Id. In the second order, the Magistrate Judge

18

denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories and requests

19

for production but ordered Defendants to provide responsive information to a few

20

requests for production. See Doc. No. 812 at 14.

21

After the Magistrate Judge issued these two orders, member Plaintiffs filed two

22

timely objections. See Doc. Nos. 815, 821; see also Doc. No. 820. Arora objected to the

23

Magistrate Judge’s “Order (Doc 811) denying Plaintiff’s requests to take deposition and

24

discovery of Noble Systems (Doc 790).” Doc. No. 815 at 1. Martin, Johnson, and

25

several others5 (collectively, “Martin, et al.”) objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order

26
27
28

5

The full list of member Plaintiffs that join the motion is located at Doc. No. 821 at 13–16.
7
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 8 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6384 Page 8 of 18

1

(Doc. No. 812) denying Plaintiffs’ request to compel written discovery. See Doc. No.

2

821 at 3, 6, 13. Specifically, Martin, et al. objected to the Magistrate Judge denying their

3

motion to compel requests for production numbered 14, 18, and 19. See id. The Court

4

overruled both objections. See Doc. No. 827. The Court now finds and respectfully

5

suggests that remand of the remaining member cases is appropriate.

6
7

II. LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407,

8
9
10
11
12

[e]ach action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the
conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was
transferred unless it shall have been previously terminated: Provided,
however, That the panel may separate any claim, cross-claim, counter-claim,
or third-party claim and remand any of such claims before the remainder of
the action is remanded.

13
14

28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). The same statute permits the Panel to “prescribe rules for the

15

conduct of its business not inconsistent with Acts of Congress and the Federal Rules of

16

Civil Procedure.” Id. § 1407(f). The Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial

17

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation provide such additional procedural details:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(b) Initiation of Remand. Typically, the transferee judge recommends
remand of an action, or a part of it, to the transferor court at any time by
filing a suggestion of remand with the Panel. However, the Panel may
remand an action or any separable claim, cross-claim, counterclaim or thirdparty claim within it, upon
(i) the transferee court’s suggestion of remand,
(ii) the Panel’s own initiative by entry of an order to show cause, a
conditional remand order or other appropriate order, or
(iii) motion of any party.

26
27

J.P.M.L. R. 10.1(b) (emphasis added).

28
8
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 9 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6385 Page 9 of 18

1

“In considering the question of remand, the Panel has consistently given great

2

weight to the transferee judge’s determination that remand of a particular action at a

3

particular time is appropriate because the transferee judge, after all, supervises the day-to-

4

day pretrial proceedings.” In re: Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Qui Tam Litig. (No.

5

II), 560 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1350 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2008) (quoting In re Holiday

6

Magic Sec. & Antitrust Litig., 433 F. Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977)). When

7

suggesting remand, transferee courts apply the same guidelines the Panel itself would

8

apply when deciding whether to order remand. In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 128 F.

9

Supp. 2d 1196, 1197 (S.D. Ind. 2001). “Remand is inappropriate . . . when continued

10

consolidation will ‘eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,

11

and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.’” In re Silica

12

Prod. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563, 668 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (quoting In re Heritage

13

Bonds Litig., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 1370 (J.P.M.L. 2002)). “By contrast, the Panel has

14

discretion to remand when everything that remains to be done is case-specific.” Id.

15

III. DISCUSSION

16

The deadline for filing a pretrial dispositive motion has passed. Several member

17

Plaintiffs moved to amend the deadline after it passed. See Doc. No.801. However, the

18

Magistrate Judge denied the motion, and Plaintiffs did not object on the issue of the

19

dispositive motion deadline. See Doc. No. 811. Further, there is no outstanding common

20

discovery remaining to be completed for the purposes of this MDL. Plaintiffs Arora and

21

Martin, et al. objected to several of the Magistrate Judge’s orders regarding further

22

discovery. See Doc. Nos. 815, 821. The Court overruled these objections. See Doc. No.

23

827.

24

Given that the time for filing pretrial dispositive motions has passed and there does

25

not appear to be any pending discovery to be produced for the purpose of this MDL,

26

pretrial proceedings—to the extent such proceedings are common as to all member

27
28
9
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 10 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6386 Page 10 of 18

1

cases—are complete.6 Because “pretrial proceedings are now complete, remand is

2

obligatory.” In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-cv-05944-JST, 2017

3

WL 8676440, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2017); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) (noting that

4

member cases “shall” be remand “at or before the conclusion of such pretrial

5

proceedings”); Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35

6

(1998) (“The Panel’s instruction comes in terms of the mandatory ‘shall’ which normally

7

creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.”). The Court finds that any

8

remaining discovery, especially any outstanding Plaintiff-specific discovery, can and

9

should be achieved in the transferor courts. Given the current procedural standing of this

10

MDL and the fact this MDL has continued since 2011, the Court finds that the just and

11

efficient litigation of the member cases can only be continued in their original transferor

12

courts. 7 Accordingly, the Court finds remand appropriate.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

The Court makes no findings and expresses no opinion as to whether any further pretrial proceedings
are necessary or appropriate in any individual member case. The Court suggests remand sua sponte
after carefully inquiring what remains to be done in this MDL that may be relevant to all member cases.
After no party filed a motion for summary judgment by the June 12, 2020 deadline, the Court promptly
held a status conference on June 18, 2020 to determine the “current status of this MDL as to the
remaining member cases.” Doc. No. 782 at 1; see also Doc. No. 789. In particular, the Court generally
sought to determine “whether there [were] any other pretrial matters requiring the attention of the Court”
and whether the Court should suggest remand. Doc. No. 782 at 1–2. After member Plaintiffs moved to
amend scheduling deadlines and compel discovery, the Magistrate Judge denied the motions—although
he did order Defendants to provide the responsive information they agreed to produce regarding a few
requests for production. See Doc. No. 811; Doc. No. 812. Then, after several Plaintiffs objected, the
Court overruled the objections. See Doc. No. 827.

7

Additionally, the Court otherwise finds that a MDL is not the most appropriate vehicle for adjudicating
pretrial issues in TCPA cases—as seen in the recent trend of the Panel denying centralization of TCPA
actions. See, e.g., In re United Collection Bureau, Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig., 273 F.
Supp. 3d 1364–65, 1365 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2017) (“These factual issues, while common, appear
to be relatively straightforward, and discovery is unlikely to be unusually burdensome or timeconsuming. In contrast, the amount of individualized discovery into such matters as the number of calls
each plaintiff received, the process and documentation involved in the obtaining (or revocation) of
consent, and the timing and circumstances thereof seems likely to be quite significant.”); In re Kohl’s
Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig., 220 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1364 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2016)
(“At least with respect to those actions, factual issues encompass defendants’ practices, policies, and
procedures with respect to making debt collection calls and obtaining and recording recipients’ consent
(and any revocation thereof), as well as the nature of the dialing system or systems used. But these
10
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 11 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6387 Page 11 of 18

1

Upon remand and for the benefit of the transferor courts, the Court recommends

2

that the transferor courts set status conferences to determine whether settlement is

3

appropriate and, if not, to determine whether Plaintiff-specific discovery needs to be

4

completed and to set a dispositive motion deadline for Plaintiff-specific issues that can be

5

adjudicated prior to trial.

6

IV. CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons and pursuant to Panel Rule 10.1(b)(i), the Court

8

respectfully SUGGESTS that the Panel REMAND all remaining member cases, which

9

are listed below. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file this Order on the docket

10

of 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD). The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to

11

forward a certified copy of this Order to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

12

Litigation. The member cases are as follows8:

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

issues, while common, appear to be relatively straightforward, and discovery is unlikely to be unusually
burdensome or time-consuming. In contrast, the amount of individualized discovery into such matters
as the number of calls each plaintiff received, the process and documentation involving in obtaining that
plaintiff’s consent, and the timing and circumstances surrounding revocation seems likely to be quite
significant.”); In re: Uber Techs., Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig., 247 F. Supp. 3d 1386,
1387 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2016) (“Although the actions appear to share some factual questions
relating to allegations that Uber violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages to plaintiffs,
the record indicates that several actions present significant individualized factual issues concerning the
issue of consent and the applicability of allegedly mandatory arbitration agreements to certain
plaintiffs.” (footnote omitted)).
8

This list does not include the two member cases that originated in this district and, thus, do not require
formal remand by the Panel: Prows v. Midland Funding LLC, 13-cv-800-MMA (MDD) and
Gazanchiyants v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2375-MMA (MDD). See JPML MDL No.
2286, Doc. No. 08/23/2016. Upon the Panel granting remand of all MDL member cases, the Court will
treat these two actions as independent actions outside of the MDL.
11
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 12 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6388 Page 12 of 18

1

1.

Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC, 11-cv-2368-MMA (MDD)

2

2.

Goetz v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 13-cv-1478-MMA (MDD)

3

3.

Ferdarko v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 13-cv-1517-MMA (MDD)

4

4.

Manasse v. Midland Funding LLC, 13-cv-1519-MMA (MDD)

5

5.

Doherty v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 13-cv-2010-MMA (MDD)

6

6.

Roy v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 13-cv-2882-MMA (MDD)

7

7.

Akers v. Midland Funding, LLC, 14-cv-240-MMA (MDD)

8

8.

Santamaria v. Midland Funding, LLC, 14-cv-242-MMA (MDD)

9

9.

Quevedo v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-381-MMA (MDD)

10

10. Cooper v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-382-MMA (MDD)

11

11. McDonald v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-689-MMA (MDD)

12

12. Gilmore v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-861-MMA (MDD)

13

13. Weisberger v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1336-MMA (MDD)

14

14. Jones v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1337-MMA (MDD)

15

15. Wentworth v. Midland Funding LLC, 14-cv-1355-MMA (MDD)

16

16. Smith et al v. Midland Funding, LLC, 14-cv-1386-MMA (MDD)

17

17. Bretz v. Midland Credit Management Inc, 14-cv-1502-MMA (MDD)

18

18. Gruver v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1559-MMA (MDD)

19

19. Dotson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1760-MMA (MDD)

20

20. Benarroch v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1893-MMA (MDD)

21

21. Hill v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1950-MMA (MDD)

22

22. Valliere v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1960-MMA (MDD)

23

23. Shearer v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2151-MMA (MDD)

24

24. Moya v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2467-MMA (MDD)

25

25. Andrews v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2506-MMA (MDD)

26

26. Love v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2881-MMA (MDD)

27

27. King v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2909-MMA (MDD)

28

28. Howard v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-170-MMA (MDD)
12
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 13 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6389 Page 13 of 18

1

29. Glover v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-222-MMA (MDD)

2

30. Gaddis v. Midland Credit Management Inc, 15-cv-234-MMA (MDD)

3

31. Hall v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-503-MMA (MDD)

4

32. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-723-MMA (MDD)9

5

33. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-724-MMA (MDD)

6

34. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-725-MMA (MDD)

7

35. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-726-MMA (MDD)

8

36. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-728-MMA (MDD)

9

37. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-729-MMA (MDD)

10

38. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-773-MMA (MDD)

11

39. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-774-MMA (MDD)

12

40. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-775-MMA (MDD)

13

41. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-776-MMA (MDD)

14

42. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-777-MMA (MDD)

15

43. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-783-MMA (MDD)

16

44. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-785-MMA (MDD)

17

45. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1784-MMA (MDD)

18

46. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1785-MMA (MDD)

19

47. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1788-MMA (MDD)

20

48. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1789-MMA (MDD)

21

49. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1790-MMA (MDD)

22

50. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1796-MMA (MDD)

23

51. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1797-MMA (MDD)

24

52. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1798-MMA (MDD)

25
26
27
28

9

This action includes each of pro se Plaintiff David E. Mack’s 106 related member cases. As noted
above, the Court previously sua sponte consolidated his 106 member cases under one case number, 15cv-723-MMA (MDD). See Doc. No. 572. The full list of Mack’s 106 cases can be found at Doc. No.
572-1 at 2–4, which the Court also includes in this list as requested by the Panel.
13
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 14 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6390 Page 14 of 18

1

53. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1799-MMA (MDD)

2

54. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1801-MMA (MDD)

3

55. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1803-MMA (MDD)

4

56. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1805-MMA (MDD)

5

57. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1806-MMA (MDD)

6

58. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1807-MMA (MDD)

7

59. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1808-MMA (MDD)

8

60. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1809-MMA (MDD)

9

61. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1810-MMA (MDD)

10

62. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1811-MMA (MDD)

11

63. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2226-MMA (MDD)

12

64. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2228-MMA (MDD)

13

65. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2229-MMA (MDD)

14

66. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2231-MMA (MDD)

15

67. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2250-MMA (MDD)

16

68. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2251-MMA (MDD)

17

69. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2252-MMA (MDD)

18

70. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2253-MMA (MDD)

19

71. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2330-MMA (MDD)

20

72. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2331-MMA (MDD)

21

73. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2332-MMA (MDD)

22

74. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2333-MMA (MDD)

23

75. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2335-MMA (MDD)

24

76. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2337-MMA (MDD)

25

77. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2418-MMA (MDD)

26

78. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2421-MMA (MDD)

27

79. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2422-MMA (MDD)

28

80. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2423-MMA (MDD)
14
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 15 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6391 Page 15 of 18

1

81. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2525-MMA (MDD)

2

82. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2527-MMA (MDD)

3

83. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2528-MMA (MDD)

4

84. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2529-MMA (MDD)

5

85. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2639-MMA (MDD)

6

86. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2641-MMA (MDD)

7

87. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2643-MMA (MDD)

8

88. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2644-MMA (MDD)

9

89. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2645-MMA (MDD)

10

90. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2646-MMA (MDD)

11

91. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2647-MMA (MDD)

12

92. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2648-MMA (MDD)

13

93. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2649-MMA (MDD)

14

94. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2650-MMA (MDD)

15

95. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2651-MMA (MDD)

16

96. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2653-MMA (MDD)

17

97. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2822-MMA (MDD)

18

98. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2823-MMA (MDD)

19

99. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2827-MMA (MDD)

20

100. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2830-MMA (MDD)

21

101. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2831-MMA (MDD)

22

102. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2832-MMA (MDD)

23

103. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2834-MMA (MDD)

24

104. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2835-MMA (MDD)

25

105. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2858-MMA (MDD)

26

106. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-61-MMA (MDD)

27

107. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-62-MMA (MDD)

28

108. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-131-MMA (MDD)
15
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 16 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6392 Page 16 of 18

1

109. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-132-MMA (MDD)

2

110. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-265-MMA (MDD)

3

111. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-266-MMA (MDD)

4

112. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-267-MMA (MDD)

5

113. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-269-MMA (MDD)

6

114. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-271-MMA (MDD)

7

115. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-272-MMA (MDD)

8

116. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-273-MMA (MDD)

9

117. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-274-MMA (MDD)

10

118. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-334-MMA (MDD)

11

119. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-335-MMA (MDD)

12

120. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-336-MMA (MDD)

13

121. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-340-MMA (MDD)

14

122. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-341-MMA (MDD)

15

123. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-342-MMA (MDD)

16

124. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-343-MMA (MDD)

17

125. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-350-MMA (MDD)

18

126. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-351-MMA (MDD)

19

127. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-352-MMA (MDD)

20

128. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-353-MMA (MDD)

21

129. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-354-MMA (MDD)

22

130. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-356-MMA (MDD)

23

131. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-357-MMA (MDD)

24

132. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-358-MMA (MDD)

25

133. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-359-MMA (MDD)

26

134. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-360-MMA (MDD)

27

135. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-361-MMA (MDD)

28

136. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-362-MMA (MDD)
16
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 17 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6393 Page 17 of 18

1

137. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-363-MMA (MDD)

2

138. Farley v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-939-MMA (MDD)

3

139. Cray v. Midland Credit Management Inc, 15-cv-1051-MMA (MDD)

4

140. Permenter v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1644-MMA (MDD)

5

141. Arora v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1712-MMA (MDD)

6

142. Basham v. Midland Funding, LLC, 15-cv-2282-MMA (MDD)

7

143. Johnson v. Encore Capital Group, Inc., 13-cv-2477-MMA (MDD)

8

144. Rumbough v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 15-cv-2943-MMA (MDD)

9

145. Cockman v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-1362-MMA (MDD)

10

146. Pugh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-1977-MMA (MDD)

11

147. Eaton et al v. Midland Credit Management Inc, 16-cv-3025-MMA (MDD)

12

148. Gilbert v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-115-MMA (MDD)

13

149. Boyd v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-471-MMA (MDD)

14

150. Colacchia v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-472-MMA (MDD)

15

151. Miller v. Midland Fundng LLC, 17-cv-473-MMA (MDD)

16

152. Duval v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-475-MMA (MDD)

17

153. Cruz v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-476-MMA (MDD)

18

154. Morris v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-479-MMA (MDD)

19

155. Avesian v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-482-MMA (MDD)

20

156. Richino-Brown v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-483-MMA (MDD)

21

157. Lefler v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-504-MMA (MDD)

22

158. Spencer v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-605-MMA (MDD)

23

159. Covington v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-784-MMA (MDD)

24

160. Little v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-975-MMA (MDD)

25

161. Ramcharitar v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-976-MMA (MDD)

26

162. Natalie Huffman v. Midland Credit Managment, Inc., 17-cv-1015-MMA (MDD)

27

163. Prince v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-1242-MMA (MDD)

28

164. Negroni vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-2522-MMA (MDD)
17
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)

Case 3:11-md-02286-MMA-MDD Document 1085-1 Filed 12/01/20 Page 18 of 18
Case MDL No. 2286 Document 829 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.6394 Page 18 of 18

1

165. Christian v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 18-cv-19-MMA (MDD)

2

166. Lauderdale v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 18-cv-483-MMA (MDD)

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: November 20, 2020

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)