Avenue CLO Fund, Ltd. et al v. Bank of America, N.A., et al

Filing 79

CERTIFIED REMAND ORDER. MDL No. 2106. Signed by MDL (FLSD) on 1/14/14. (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal from FLSD, # 2 1 09-md-02106 Designation of Record, # 3 1 09-md-02106 Dkt. Sheet - flsd, # 4 09-MD-2106 DE 1, 2, 4-30, # 5 0 9-MD-2106 DE 32-36, # 6 09-MD-2106 DE 37 part 1 of 3, # 7 09-MD-2106 DE 37 part 2 of 3, # 8 09-MD-2106 DE 37 part 3 of 3, # 9 09-MD-2106 DE 38, 39, 41-47, 49, 50, # 10 09-MD-2106 DE 51, # 11 09-MD-2106 DE 52-59, 61-65, 68, 70, 72-76, # (1 2) 09-MD-2106 DE 78-84, 86-91, # 13 09-MD-2106 DE 93, 95-103, 106-108, # 14 09-MD-2106 DE 110-115, # 15 09-MD-2106 DE 116-125, 127-129, 132-134, # 16 09-MD-2106 DE 136-140, 142-158, # 17 09-MD-2106 DE 160-162, 164-167, 170-175, 177-190, # ( 18) 09-MD-2106 DE 191-199, 201-215, # 19 09-MD-2106 DE 217-229, 232-247, # 20 09-MD-2106 DE 248, # 21 09-MD-2106 DE 249 part 1 of 2, # 22 09-MD-2106 DE 249 part 2 of 2, # 23 09-MD-2106 DE 251-253, 262-266, 284-287, 300, 301, 310, 319, 326-3 31, # 24 09-MD-2106 DE 335, 336, 338-344, 346-349, # 25 09-MD-2106 DE 350, # 26 09-MD-2106 DE 351-358, # 27 09-MD-2106 DE 360-366, 368-374, # 28 09-MD-2106 DE 375 part 1 of 3, # 29 09-MD-2106 DE 375 part 2 of 3, # 30 09-MD-2106 DE 375 p art 3 of 3, # 31 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 1, # 32 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 2, # 33 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 3, # 34 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 4, # 35 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 5, # 36 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 6, # 37 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 7, # 38 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 8, # 39 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 9, # 40 09-MD-2106 DE 377 part 1, # 41 09-MD-2106 DE 377 part 2, # 42 09-MD-2106 DE 378, # 43 09-MD-2106 DE 379, # 44 09-MD-2106 DE 380, # 45 09-MD-2106 DE 381 part 1, # 46 09-MD-2 106 DE 381 part 2, # 47 09-MD-2106 DE 382 part 1, # 48 09-MD-2106 DE 382 part 2, # 49 09-MD-2106 DE 382 part 3, # 50 09-MD-2106 DE 382 part 4, # 51 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 1, # 52 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 2, # 53 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 3, # 54 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 4, # 55 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 5, # 56 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 6, # 57 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 7, # 58 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 8, # 59 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 9, # 60 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 10, # 61 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 11, # 62 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 1, # 63 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 2, # 64 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 3, # 65 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 4, # 66 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 5, # 67 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 6, # 68 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 7, # ( 69) 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 8, # 70 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 9, # 71 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 10, # 72 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 11, # 73 09-MD-2106 DE 385 part 1, # 74 09-MD-2106 DE 385 part 2, # 75 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 1, # 76 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 2, # 77 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 3, # 78 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 4, # 79 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 5, # 80 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 6, # 81 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 7, # 82 09-MD-2106 DE 387 part 1, # 83 09-MD-2106 DE 387 part 2, # 84 09-MD-2106 DE 388, # 85 09-MD-2106 DE 389 part 1, # 86 09-MD-2106 DE 389 part 2, # 87 09-MD-2106 DE 389 part 3, # 88 09-MD-2106 DE 389 part 4, # 89 09-MD-2106 DE 390, 392-394, # 90 1 10-cv-20236 Dkt. Sheet - flsd, # 91 10cv20236 DE #1-27, 29-31, 45, 53, 60-65, 67-70, 73, # 92 1 09-cv-23835 Dkt. Sheet - flsd, # 93 09cv23835 DE 112, 115-126, # 94 09cv23835 DE 130, 134, 135 and 145)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2013 Page 1 of 2
Case MDL No. 2106 Document 116 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: FONTAINEBLEAU LAS VEGAS
CONTRACT LITIGATION
Avenue CLO Fund, Ltd., et al. v. Sumitomo Mitsui
Banking Corporation, et al., S.D. Florida, C.A. No. 1:09-23835
(D. Nevada C.A. No. 2:09-01047)

)
)
)

MDL No. 2106

REMAND ORDER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to Rule 10.2, defendant Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) moves
to vacate the Panel’s order – issued at the suggestion of the transferee judge, the Honorable Alan S. Gold
– conditionally remanding this action to the District of Nevada. Responding plaintiffs oppose the motion.1
In its motion, BANA essentially raises the same argument that Judge Gold rejected in denying the
bank’s motion seeking reconsideration of his Suggestion of Remand – i.e., that pretrial proceedings in the
MDL – including both fact and expert discovery regarding plaintiffs’ alleged damages – have not yet been
completed. The judge stated: “[I] do not believe I have obtained any particular expertise from supervising
the MDL that would render me more capable than the District of Nevada in presiding over damages
discovery. To the contrary, I conclude the central purpose of the JPML referral has been achieved through
my orders on motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, and it will promote the just and
efficient conduct of this action to have any remaining damages discovery supervised by the judge trying the

*

1

Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.

Responding plaintiffs are: Avenue CLO IV, Ltd., Avenue CLO V, Ltd., Avenue CLO VI, Ltd.,
Battalion CLO 2007-I Ltd., Brigade Leveraged Capital Structures Fund, Ltd., Canpartners Investments
IV, LLC, Caspian Alpha Long Credit Fund, L.P., Caspian Capital Partners, L.P., Caspian Select Credit
Master Fund, Ltd., Genesis CLO 2007-1 Ltd., ING International Senior Bank Loans USD, ING
International (II) - Senior Bank Loans Euro, ING International (II) - Senior Bank Loans USD, ING
International -Senior Bank Loans Euro, ING Investment Management CLO I, Ltd., ING Investment
Management CLO II, Ltd., ING Investment Management CLO III, Ltd., ING Investment Management
CLO IV, Ltd., ING Investment Management CLO V, Ltd., ING Prime Rate Trust, ING Senior Income
Fund, Mariner LDC, Monarch Master Funding Ltd., Scoggin Capital Management II LLC, Scoggin
International Fund Ltd, Scoggin Worldwide Fund Ltd, Sola Ltd, Solus Core Opportunities Master Fund
Ltd, Veer Cash Flow CLO, Ltd., Venture II CDO 2002, Limited, Venture III CDO Limited, Venture IV
CDO Limited, Venture IX CDO Limited, Venture V CDO Limited, Venture VI CDO Limited, Venture
VII CDO Limited, Venture VIII CDO Limited, Vista Leveraged Income Fund, Consol Plaintiffs Cantor
Fitzgerald Securities, Olympic CLO I Ltd., SPCP Group, LLC, San Gabriel CLO I Ltd., Shasta CLO I
Ltd., Sierra CLO II Ltd., Venor Capital Master Fund, Ltd., and Whitney CLO I Ltd.

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 392 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2013 Page 2 of 2
Case MDL No. 2106 Document 116 Filed 12/13/13 Page 2 of 2

-2case, in conjunction with trial-related issues and pleadings.”2 See Order Den. Mot. Recons., at 2 (S.D.
Fla. Sept. 9, 2013) (No. 1:09-md-02106) (ECF No. 366).
After considering all argument of counsel, we will deny BANA’s motion. In assessing the question
of Section 1407 remand, we assign great weight to the transferee judge’s determination that remand of a
particular action (or actions) is appropriate, given that he or she supervises the day-to-day pretrial
proceedings.3 We find no reason not to accord such weight to Judge Gold’s considered Suggestion here.
We adopt the reasoning quoted above.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, this action is remanded to
the District of Nevada.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Paul J. Barbadoro
Sarah S. Vance

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle

01-14-2014

2

As the judge correctly noted, Section 1407 does not require that all pretrial proceedings be
completed prior to remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) (“Each action so transferred shall be remanded by
the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was
transferred unless it shall have been previously terminated . . . .”) (emphasis added).
3

See, e.g., In re: Columbia/HCA Healthcare Qui Tam Litig. (No. II), 560 F. Supp. 2d 1349,
1350 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (“‘In considering the question of remand, the Panel has consistently given great
weight to the transferee judge’s determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is
appropriate because the transferee judge, after all, supervises the day-to-day pretrial proceedings.’”)
(quoting In re Holiday Magic Sec. & Antitrust Litig., 433 F. Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977)); see
also In re: Light Cigarettes Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 856 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (J.P.M.L. 2012)
(denying motion to vacate conditional remand order filed upon issuance of transferee judge’s suggestion
of remand).