Beell v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc.

Filing 29

TRANSFER ORDER. Signed by MDL M MDL on 4/8/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Conditional Transfer Order)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR) (Attachment 1 replaced on 4/8/2014) (SLR).

Case MDL No. 2527 Document 29 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.,
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA)
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2527

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendant First National Collection
Bureau, Inc. (FNCB) moves for centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of California.
This litigation currently consists of three actions pending in the Eastern District of California, the
Southern District of California, and the District of Nevada, as listed on Schedule A.1 Plaintiffs in
these actions each allege that FNCB violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
by placing debt collection calls to plaintiffs’ cellular telephones, without the plaintiffs’ consent, using
an “autodialer” or an artificial or prerecorded voice.
Plaintiffs in each of the three actions on the motion support centralization in the Southern
District of California. Alternatively, the plaintiffs in the Eastern District of California and the District
of Nevada support centralization in those respective districts if the Panel does not select the Southern
District of California as the transferee forum. Plaintiff in the potential tag-along action in the
Southern District of Ohio favors centralization in that district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the District of Nevada will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations that FNCB placed debt
collection calls to plaintiffs’ cellular telephones using an automated system, without the plaintiffs’
consent. Although there are relatively few parties and actions at present, efficiencies can be gained
from having these actions proceed in a single district. All of the actions are brought on behalf of
putative nationwide classes of individuals allegedly contacted by FNCB in violation of the TCPA.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
Centralization also is consistent with our prior decisions involving similar TCPA claims. See, e.g.,
In re Collecto, Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig., MDL No. 2513, __ F. Supp. 2d __,

*

1

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

The Panel has taken notice of a related action pending in the Southern District of Ohio. This
and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rule 7.1.

Case MDL No. 2527 Document 29 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 3

-22014 WL 709767 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 18, 2014); In re Convergent Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., MDL
No. 2478, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2013 WL 5596117 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 8, 2013).
We conclude that the District of Nevada is the most appropriate transferee district for pretrial
proceedings in this litigation. FNCB is located in this district, and therefore relevant documents and
witnesses are likely to be located there. The district is both convenient and accessible for the majority
of the parties. We are convinced that the District of Nevada has the necessary judicial resources and
expertise to efficiently manage this litigation, and centralization in this district provides us the
opportunity to assign the litigation to the Honorable Kent J. Dawson, an experienced jurist who we
are confident will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the District of Nevada are transferred to the District of Nevada and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Kent J. Dawson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________
John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
4/8/2014

/s/ Summer Rivera

Sarah S. Vance

Case MDL No. 2527 Document 29 Filed 04/08/14 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.,
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA)
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2527

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of California
NEAL V. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., C.A. No. 2:13-01206
Southern District of California
HUNTER V. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., C.A. No.
3:13-01515
District of Nevada
BEELL V. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., C.A. No. 2:13-01303