Devore et al v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC

Filing 44

MDL ORDER Denying Transfer. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2013)

Case MDL No. 2486 Document 17 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: PROSPECT MORTGAGE, LLC, FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2486

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendant Prospect Mortgage, LLC
(Prospect), moves to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. This litigation currently
consists of thirty-seven actions pending in thirty-seven districts, as listed on Schedule A.1 Each of the more
than 240 plaintiffs in these actions alleges that he or she was employed by Prospect as a mortgage loan
officer and was improperly classified as an exempt employee under the Federal Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and analogous state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs all seek unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation.
All of the plaintiffs in the actions on the motion oppose centralization. Alternatively, they support
centralization in the Eastern District of California before the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, who is
presiding over the wage and hour lawsuit that preceded the present actions. See Sliger v. Prospect
Mortg., LLC, C.A. No. 2:11-00465 (E.D. Cal.).
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that Section 1407
centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions undisputably share some factual questions arising out of allegations
that Prospect misclassified the plaintiffs as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime compensation
requirements of the FLSA and analogous state wage and hour laws. Individualized factual disputes,
however, will predominate in this litigation, which is likely to focus on the applicability of certain exemptions
to individual plaintiffs, such as the “outside sales” exemption. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.500(a). Discovery and
motion practice as to these issues will be overwhelmingly plaintiff-specific. Indeed, the parties
acknowledge that the substantial differences among individual actions were a reason that the parties
stipulated to decertification of the Sliger collective action.

*

1

Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.

Prospect notified the Panel of two related actions—each a petition to compel arbitration—
pending in the Central and Northern Districts of California. Both actions have since been closed.

Case MDL No. 2486 Document 17 Filed 12/13/13 Page 2 of 6

-2Thus, any efficiency benefits from centralization will be minimal. These are not class actions, so
there is no risk of conflicting class certification rulings. The proceedings themselves will not be particularly
complex—notably, the Eastern District of Virginia action has already progressed to trial, and Prospect’s
counsel stated during oral argument that these actions will require only two or three day trials per plaintiff.

Even if these actions require further common discovery of Prospect, centralization is not necessary.
There may be thirty-seven actions on this motion, but there are only two counsel—one plaintiffs’ counsel
and one defense counsel. We have no doubt that, where so few counsel are involved in a litigation,
discovery can be coordinated by the parties efficiently without centralization. See In re Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc., Fair Labor Stds. Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour Litig., 829 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1377
(J.P.M.L. 2011) (“The cases here are not particularly complex. And, informal cooperation to avoid
duplicative proceedings is appropriate where most plaintiffs share counsel.”).
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
Paul J. Barbadoro
Lewis A. Kaplan
Ellen Segal Huvelle

Charles R. Breyer
Sarah S. Vance

Case MDL No. 2486 Document 17 Filed 12/13/13 Page 3 of 6

IN RE: PROSPECT MORTGAGE, LLC, FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR
LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

District of Arizona
James Barker, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-00822
Central District of California
Osric Brown, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-02850
Eastern District of California
Bonny Franklin, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-00790
Northern District of California
Javan Devore, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-01841
District of Colorado
Otto Miiller v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-01079
District of Connecticut
Shelley Adams, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00581
District of Delaware
David Henson v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00719
Middle District of Florida
Michael Graham, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 8:13-01050
Southern District of Florida
Byron Andrews, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-21453

MDL No. 2486

Case MDL No. 2486 Document 17 Filed 12/13/13 Page 4 of 6

-A2-

Northern District of Georgia
David Alexander, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-01312
District of Hawaii
John Dispirito, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00192
District of Idaho
Judy Bauer, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00190
Northern District of Illinois
Jeremy Allaway, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-03004
Southern District of Indiana
Judith Albertson, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00653
Southern District of Iowa
Andrew Glenn, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 4:13-00184
Western District of Louisiana
Damon Cutty v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 5:13-00820
District of Maryland
Larry Cadenhead, et al. v Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-01186
District of Massachusetts
John Alves, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No.1:13-10985
Eastern District of Michigan
Laura Noble v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 5:13-11837

Case MDL No. 2486 Document 17 Filed 12/13/13 Page 5 of 6

-A3District of Minnesota
Thomas Gallagher, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 0:13-00941
District of Nevada
Carlos Arias, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-00671
District of New Jersey
Matthew Zimmerman, et al v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-02585
District of New Mexico
Catherine Avants v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00376
Eastern District of New York
Lisa Baez, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-02449
Northern District of New York
Sadiki Pierre, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00453
Southern District of New York
Justin Couillard, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-02676
Western District of New York
Thomas Del Gaizo, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 6:13-06200
Eastern District of North Carolina
Van Fleming, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 4:13-00098
Middle District of North Carolina
Stacey Johnson, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00331
Western District of North Carolina

Case MDL No. 2486 Document 17 Filed 12/13/13 Page 6 of 6

-A4Joseph Keever, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00241
Northern District of Ohio
Victor Chappell v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00911
District of Oregon
Gregory Barnhart, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00669
District of South Carolina
Richard Kaponer v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 9:13-01121
Northern District of Texas
Dorianne Blunt, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-01595
Western District of Texas
Brian Hopple v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 3:13-00137
Eastern District of Virginia
Thomas Sehler, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 1:13-00473
Western District of Washington
Julie Cairone, et al. v. Prospect Mortgage, LLC, C.A. No. 2:13-00722