Martin et al v. Narconon Fresh Start et al

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re MDL NO. 2598. Signed by MDL Panel Chair Sarah S. Vance. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

Case MDL No. 2598 Document 41 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: NARCONON DRUG REHABILITATION
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2598

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the District of Nevada Welch action move under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the District of Nevada or, alternatively,
in the Southern District of California. This litigation consists of twenty-one actions pending in the
Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California, the District of Colorado, and the District of
Nevada, as listed on Schedule A.1 Defendants Association for Better Living and Education
International (ABLE), Narconon International (NI), Narconon Fresh Start, Narconon Western United
States, and Narconon Freedom Center (collectively, Narconon) oppose centralization. Alternatively,
should we centralize this litigation, Narconon suggests that the Southern District of California be
selected as the transferee district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation. These actions share some common factual questions relating to plaintiffs’
allegations that the Narconon Program—a drug rehabilitation program that plaintiffs allege consists
solely of the reading of literature from the Scientology religion and a sauna detoxification
program—does not meet the applicable standard of care for treating substance abuse and that
defendants misrepresented the Narconon program’s efficacy and its connection to Scientology. We
are not convinced, though, that these common issues are sufficiently complex or numerous to
warrant the creation of an MDL. These actions are primarily fraud actions and will involve
significant case-specific facts, such as the specific representations regarding the Narconon Program
made to each plaintiff, the conditions at the different facilities attended by the plaintiffs at different
times, and the widely varying injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiffs. The necessary discovery and
pretrial practice in each action also will differ from action to action due to the different state and
federal laws asserted in each action. In addition, several cases involve arbitration clauses and, to the
extent that plaintiffs pose capacity defenses to those clauses, that inquiry will be individualized.
*

1

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.

There were twenty-four actions initially listed on the motion to centralize, but three actions
have since been dismissed. In addition to the actions on the motion, the Panel has been notified of
six related actions pending in the Northern District of Florida, the Middle District of Louisiana, the
Western District of Michigan, and the District of Nevada.

Case MDL No. 2598 Document 41 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 4

-2Further, the common defendants—ABLE and NI—have been dismissed from at least eight of these
actions to date. Thus, on the present record, it appears that individualized facts may predominate
over the common factual issues in this litigation. See In re Signal Int’l LLC Human Trafficking
Litig., MDL No. 2554, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2014 WL 4050056, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 12, 2014)
(denying centralization because, inter alia, “individualized facts very well may predominate over
the common factual issues alleged by plaintiffs”).
Furthermore, none of the actions is a class action, which limits the scope for inconsistent
pretrial rulings and practice to issues pertaining to discovery and scheduling. Plaintiffs in all the
actions on the motion are represented by common counsel,2 while defendants purportedly have
retained liaison counsel to coordinate the litigation. At oral argument, counsel for the defendants
confirmed their willingness to coordinate with respect to discovery of any common third-party or
Narconon witnesses. These circumstances suggest that voluntary cooperation and coordination
among the parties and the involved courts, particularly given the number of actions, is a preferable
alternative to centralization to address any possibility of duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial
rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly & 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).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

2

Charles R. Breyer
R. David Proctor

That plaintiffs in the actions pending the District of Nevada recently “associated the Eglet
Law Group as co-counsel,” see MDL No. 2598, ECF No. 26, at 1 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 11, 2014)
(Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief), does not alter the fact that plaintiffs in each of the actions are
represented by either Hamilton Law LLC, Saeed & Little LLP, or both.

Case MDL No. 2598 Document 41 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 4

IN RE: NARCONON DRUG REHABILITATION
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2598

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
LOVETT v. ASSOCIATION OF BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION
INTERNATIONAL, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-06430
NORD-SHAFER, ET AL. v. ASSOCIATION OF BETTER LIVING
AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-06438

Northern District of California
O'CONNELL, ET AL. v. NARCONON OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 5:14-02660

Southern District of California
AMATO v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-00588
BURCHETT, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:14-01678
KELLER, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-02168
HENNING, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-02379

District of Colorado
MOTT, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, C.A. No. 1:14-01293
MATTHYS, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01304
LEVY v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-01591
VAIRO, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02748
COURSON, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02768
(Schedule A continued ....)

Case MDL No. 2598 Document 41 Filed 02/05/15 Page 4 of 4

-A2MDL No. 2598 Schedule A (Continued)
District of Nevada
WELCH, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, C.A. No. 2:14-00167
TARR, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, C.A. No. 2:14-00283
GEANACOPULOS, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:14-00629
YATES, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00837
WINCHELL, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00851
MCCLURE, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00995
TINO, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01083
KOSLOW, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01588
MARTIN, ET AL. v. NARCONON FRESH START, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01599