Gosling v. Groupon, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (MDL 2238) by MDL Panel. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2011)

Case MDL No. 2238 Document 51 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 3

FILED
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: GROUPON, INC., MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

MDL No. 2238

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:· Pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in the Northern District ofCalifornia
Gosling action and the Southern District of California Ferreira action move for centralized pretrial
proceedings of this litigation in the Northern District of California. At oral argument, plaintiffs
alternatively suggested centralization in the District of the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs' motion
encompasses nine actions pending in five districts, as listed on Schedule A.2
No party opposes centralization ofthis litigation, though the parties are divided as to where the
actions should be centralized. Plaintiffs in all actions and potential tag-along actions pending,
respectively, in the Northern District of California and the District of Massachusetts support
centralization in the Northern District of California. Responding defendants 3 support centralization in
either the Southern District of California or the Northern District of Illinois.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we fmd that these nine actions
invo lve common questions 0 f fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 will serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions
involve common factual questions regarding Groupon's sale ofgift certificates/vouchers with allegedly
improper expiration dates and other objectionable provisions (e.g., requirements that gift certificates be
used in a single transaction, that cash refunds will not be made for unused portions, and class action

• Judge Barbara S. Jones did not participate in the decision of this matter. Additionally, Judge
Kathryn H. Vratil could be a member of the putative classes in this docket; she has renounced her
participation in these classes and participated in the decision.
2 The parties have notified the Panel ofrelated actions pending in the Northern District of California
and the District ofMassachusetts. These actions and any other related actions are potential tag-along
actions. See Rules 1.1{h), 7.1 and 7.2, R.PJ.P.M.L.
3 Groupon, Inc. (Groupon), defendant in all actions; Nordstrom, Inc., defendant in two actions; and
Fun Time LLC dba Wheel Fun Rentals, Whirly West Inc. dba WhirlyBall, and YMCA ofthe USA, each
of which are defendants in only one action.
Jun 03, 2011

s/ A. Victoria

Case MOL No. 2238 Document 51 Filed 05/25111 Page 2 of 3

-2­

waiver and mandatory arbitration provisions). Plaintiffs contend that Groupon and the various retailer
defendants' sale of the gift certificates/vouchers violate, inter alia, the federal Credit Card
Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) and Electronic Funds Transfer Act, as
well as state consumer protection laws. As all parties agree, centralization under Section 1407 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.
We are of the opinion that the Southern District of California, where the flIst-filed action is
pending, stands out as an appropriate transferee forum. Given that this litigation is nationwide in scope,
anyone of the three proposed transferee districts would be an acceptable choice. Our choice is the
Southern District of California because it is a relatively underutilized transferee district that is located
in an accessible metropolitan area. By centralizing this litigation before Judge Dana M. Sabraw, we are
selecting a jurist experienced in multidistrict litigation who enjoys caseload conditions conducive to
steering this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of California are transferred to the Southern
District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action listed on Schedule A and pending
in that district.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Kathryn H. Vratil
Frank C. Damrell, Jr.

W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Paul J. Barbadoro

Case MDL No, 2238 Document 51 Filed 05/25/11 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: GROUPON, L~C., MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
Sarah Gosling v. Groupon, Inc., C.A. No. 3:11-01038
William Eidenmuller v. Groupon, Inc., C.A No.4: 11-00984
Southern District of California
Anthony Ferreira v. Groupon, Inc., et aI., C.A No. 3:11-00132
District of District of Columbia
Carlos Vazquezv. Groupon, Inc., et aL, C.A No. 1:11-00495
Southern District of Florida
Jason Cohen v. Groupon, Inc., C.A. No. 9:11-80149
Northern District of Illinois
Eli R. Johnson v. Groupon, Inc., et aI., C.A No. 1:11-01426
District of Minnesota
Ashley Christensen v. Groupon, Inc., et aI., C.A No.O: 11-00501
Brian Zard v. Groupon, Inc., C.A No. 0: 11-00605
Northern District ofObio
Heather Kimel v. Groupon, Inc., et aI., C.A No. 5:11-00488

MDL No. 2238