Martinez v. Wireless Lifestyle, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER denying transfer (MDL 2322)from MDL Panel. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2012)

Case MDL No. 2322 Document 27 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: WIRELESS LIFESTYLE, INC., FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION

MDL No. 2322

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, common defendant Wireless Lifestyle, Inc.
(Wireless Lifestyle) moves for centralization of the four actions1 listed on Schedule A in the Western
District of Missouri (or, in the alternative, the Northern District of California). Responding plaintiffs
in two actions, Northern District of California Martinez and Frazier, oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that Section 1407
centralization would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. Although all four actions involve allegations concerning Wireless
Lifestyle’s compensation practices,2 those allegations differ significantly from action to action. The
Northern District of California Martinez action, for example, involves unique allegations involving
compensation owed to terminated employees, while the Central District of California Coleman
involves unique allegations that plaintiffs therein were not provided with any seating in the stores in
which they worked. While there does appear to be some overlap among the actions, the differences
among them appear to predominate, and thus centralization would likely hinder the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation, considered as a whole. Available alternatives to centralization may minimize
whatever possibilities may arise of duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In
re Eli Lilly and Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.
1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

*

Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr., and Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the disposition
of this matter.
1

Although the Section 1407 motion, as filed, also encompassed a Northern District of Illinois
action, that action has since been terminated.
2

Wireless Lifestyle is a retail provider of cell phones, phone rate plans, and related services.

Case MDL No. 2322 Document 27 Filed 02/03/12 Page 2 of 3

-2IT 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
Paul G. Barbadoro

Barbara S. Jones
Marjorie O. Rendell

Case MDL No. 2322 Document 27 Filed 02/03/12 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: WIRELESS LIFESTYLE, INC., FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION

MDL No. 2322

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
Teausha Coleman v. Wireless Lifestyle, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:11-01727
Northern District of California
Yasmin Martinez v. Wireless Lifestyle, Inc., C.A. No. 3:11-05132
Kevin Fraizier, et al. v. Wireless Lifestyle, Inc., C.A. No. 3:11-05192
Western District of Missouri
Chase White, et al. v. Pasha Distribution Corporation, C.A. No. 4:11-00975