McNeary-Calloway v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 155

ORDER by the MDL Panel denying transfer (MDL No. 3465). (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2013)

Case MDL No. 2465 Document 44 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
MORTGAGE CORPORATION FORCE-PLACED
HAZARD INSURANCE LITIGATION

MDL No. 2465

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in one action move to centralize
this litigation, which currently consists of three actions pending in three districts as listed on Schedule
A, in the Northern District of California.1 The actions involve allegedly abusive practices in the
unilateral “forced” placement of hazard insurance by JPMorgan Chase Bank (“Chase”)2 and Assurant3
on borrowers with mortgages serviced by Chase. Plaintiffs in the Southern District of Florida and
Southern District of New York actions oppose centralization. Defendants Chase and Assurant also
oppose centralization.
Since the filing of the motion, Chase and Assurant have reached a settlement in principle in
the Southern District of Florida action (Herrick) on behalf of a putative nationwide class with respect
to the hazard insurance claims that are the focus of the motion. Chase, Assurant, and the Florida
plaintiff represent that, if approved, the settlement will resolve all of the hazard insurance claims in
the three actions against Chase and Assurant. They argue that, in light of the pending settlement,
centralization would burden the litigants, interrupt settlement proceedings, and provide no
efficiencies. They also note that the Northern District of California and Southern District of New
York each have stayed their respective actions based on the upcoming settlement proceedings in the
Southern District of Florida. In response, movants contend that centralization is still warranted
because the settlement described by the other parties is tenuous and likely to be inadequate under Fed.

1

This motion was heard with three related motions at the same hearing session. The related
motions concern force-placed hazard insurance litigation against three other banks and the insurance
companies they utilize to place such insurance. See MDL No. 2464, In re: HSBC Mortg. Corp.
Force-Placed Hazard Ins. Litig.; MDL No. 2466, In re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Mortg. Corp.
Force-Placed Hazard Ins. Litig.; MDL No. 2467, In re: Bank of America, N.A., Mortg. Corp.
Force-Placed Hazard Ins. Litig. The motions are an outgrowth of the Panel’s decision last year in
In re: Mortgage Lender Force-Placed Ins. Litig., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2012).
2

“Chase” refers to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Chase Home Finance, LLC; Chase Bank
USA, N.A.; Chase Insurance Agency, Inc.; and Banc One Insurance Company.
3

“Assurant” refers to Assurant, Inc.; American Security Insurance Company; Standard
Guaranty Insurance Company; and Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company.

Case MDL No. 2465 Document 44 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 3

-2R. Civ. P. 23, and proceedings on its sufficiency should take place in the Northern District of
California where the vast majority of named plaintiffs are pursuing their actions.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we will deny the motion. The
Panel is not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization is necessary for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses or for the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All parties involved in Herrick
have represented that they intend to file a motion for preliminary approval of their proposed
nationwide class settlement on September 6, 2013. At oral argument, counsel for Chase, Assurant,
and the Florida plaintiff represented that all interested parties will have the opportunity to intervene
in Herrick for the purpose of raising issues as to the adequacy of the proposed settlement.
Centralization at this time could delay those proceedings and result in additional expense for the
litigants and the courts in establishing an MDL proceeding with little or no benefit. See In re Power
Balance, LLC Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 777 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1345-46 (J.P.M.L. 2011).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for
centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan

Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer
Sarah S. Vance

Case MDL No. 2465 Document 44 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
MORTGAGE CORPORATION FORCE-PLACED
HAZARD INSURANCE LITIGATION

MDL No. 2465

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
Patricia McNeary-Calloway, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,
C.A. No. 3:11-03058
Southern District of Florida
Alfred Herrick, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., C.A. No. 1:13-21107
Southern District of New York
Edward Isom, Jr. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., et al., C.A. No. 1:12-05431