Moore v. Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc.
Filing
52
MDL 2483 ORDER Denying Transfer of Cases. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2013)
Case MDL No. 2483 Document 36 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE URBAN OUTFITTERS FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION
MDL No. 2483
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendants Urban Outfitters, Inc., and Urban
Outfitters Wholesale, Inc. (collectively, “Urban”), move to centralize this litigation in the Northern District
of California. This litigation currently consists of five actions pending in the Northern District of California,
the Middle District of Florida, and the Eastern District of New York, as listed on Schedule A.1
Plaintiffs in all five actions are former employees at one or more of Urban’s clothing retail
stores—operating under the retail brands “Urban Outfitters” and “Anthropologie”—who claim, inter alia,
that they were unlawfully denied compensation for overtime. All of the plaintiffs oppose centralization.
They argue that the actions are brought on behalf of employees at different retail chains, involve putative
classes of different groups of employees, and allege different kinds of wage and hour claims pursuant to
different laws.
This motion presents us with a close call, but, on the basis of the papers filed and hearing session
held, we ultimately 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. We have previously observed that
the case for centralization is less convincing where “(1) the duties of the subject employees appeared to
be subject to significant local variances, (2) the defendants and/or some of the plaintiffs opposed
centralization, or (3) only a few or procedurally dissimilar cases were involved.” In re CVS Caremark
Corp. Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2010). Here, there
appears to be substantial variation between the duties of the subject employees. Some were exempt,
salaried managers. Others were non-exempt, hourly employees. Three of the actions are brought on
behalf of putative classes of salaried department managers or assistant department managers. One action
pertains to hourly department managers at Anthropologie stores, while the fifth is brought on behalf of a
putative class of hourly employees at Urban Outfitters stores. While there is some overlap among these
putative classes (as well as with the putative class asserted in the recently-noticed related action in the
*
1
Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.
The parties have notified the Panel of an additional related action pending in the Southern District
of California.
Case MDL No. 2483 Document 36 Filed 12/13/13 Page 2 of 3
-2Southern District of California), it does not outweigh the other factors that favor denial of this motion.
For instance, while all the plaintiffs allege that they were denied overtime, their allegations otherwise
differ markedly from action to action. Three actions assert claims solely under California law (including
claims for unpaid meal and rest periods not found in the other actions), while the other two actions assert
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and New York Labor Law. Some
of the plaintiffs allege that they (and the putative classes they seek to represent) were misclassified as
exempt employees, while others allege that were hourly employees denied minimum wages. Revealingly,
the plaintiff in the action pending in the Middle District of Florida alleges that assistant department managers
at Anthropologie stores were reclassified as non-exempt in February 2012, indicating a difference in
treatment of certain job positions. The differences among these cases predominate, and centralization thus
is inappropriate. See In re Wireless Lifestyle, Inc., Fair Labor Stds. Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour
Litig., 842 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 1383 (J.P.M.L. 2012).
Furthermore, there are only six related actions in this litigation—four of which are pending in two
districts in California. Accordingly, available alternatives to centralization, in particular informal cooperation
among the involved attorneys and coordination between the involved courts, appear likely to minimize
whatever possibilities may arise of duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., Fair Labor Stds. Act (FLSA) Litig., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1377,
1378-79 (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
Paul J. Barbadoro
Lewis A. Kaplan
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Charles R. Breyer
Sarah S. Vance
Case MDL No. 2483 Document 36 Filed 12/13/13 Page 3 of 3
IN RE URBAN OUTFITTERS FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION
MDL No. 2483
SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
Alexander Moore v. Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc., C.A. No. 3:13-02245
David Berry v. Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:13-02628
Shakora Abdulhaqq, et al. v. Urban Outfitters, C.A. No. 3:13-03184
Middle District of Florida
Crystal Ramirez v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., C.A. No. 6:13-01074
Eastern District of New York
Jeffrey McEarchen, et al. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., C.A. No. 1:13-03569
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?