Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Bank of America Corp. et al
Filing
25
OPINION: Based upon the conclusions set forth above, the Defendants' motion to stay is granted. It is so ordered re: (11 in 1:13-cv-00491-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidist rict Litigation's Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by Countrywide Securities Corp ., CWMBS, Inc., CWalt, Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., CWHEQ, Inc., (11 in 1:13-cv-00501-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation' s Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by Countrywide Securities Corp., CWalt, Inc., Count rywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., Countrywide Capital Markets L.L.C., (11 in 1:13-cv-00492-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by Countrywide Securities Corp., CWMBS, Inc., CWalt, Inc., Cou ntrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., (11 in 1:13-cv-00494-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by CWEHQ, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp., CWMBS, Inc., CWalt, Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., CWABS, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., (11 in 1:13-cv-00490-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by Countrywide Securities Corp., CWalt, Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/12/2013) (cd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--- -- -x
ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV,
Plaintiff,
13 eiv. 490
OPINION
- against
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
-- X
ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV,
Plaintiff,
13 eiv. 491
OPINION
against
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
-- --- -- --
-- --
-- -- --- -- --- --x
PHOENIX LIGHT SF LIMITED/ et al.,
Plaintiffs,
13 eiv. 492
OPINION
against
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
--- -- -- ---- - ---- X
1
PHOENIX LIGHT SF LIMITED, et
.,
aintiffs,
13 Civ. 494
OPINION
- against BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
--
-X
SILVER ELMS CDO II LTD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
13 Civ. 501
OPINION
against
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
---- ------------------------ --X
A P PEA RAN C E S:
At
for Plaintiffs
GUZOV, LLC
900 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10022
By: Anne W. Salisbury, Esq.
Debra J. Guzov, Esq.
David J. Kaplan, Esq.
Attorneys for Countrywide Defendants
GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP
53 State Street
Exchange Place
Boston, MA 02109
By: Daniel Roeser, Esq.
Brian E. Pastuszenski,
Inez H. Friedman-Boyce, Esq.
2
Sweet, D. J. ,
Defendants Countrywide Financial Corporation,
Countrywide Securit
s Corporation, Countrywide Capital markets,
LLC, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., CWABS 1 Inc'
CWHEQI Inc'
l
and CWMBS, Inc.
(collectively,
l
CWALT, Inc.
"Countrywide
ll
)
1
have
moved to stay five related cases 1 pending a final determination
by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "JPML
II
)
on whether to centralize these cases with 34 other cases
assigned to the Countrywide mortgage-backed securities ("MBS
multidistrict litigation
Securities Lit
l
In re Count
II
)
-backed
--------------~----------~~----------
ion, Case No. 11 ML-02265-MRP-MAN (C.D. Cal.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pending in the Central District of California (the "Countrywide
MBS MDLII) .
Plaintiffs have opposed the instant motion as well as
the JPML/s Conditional Transfer Order dated February 6 1 2013
(the "CTO'/)
February
1
271
and have filed their motion to vacate the CTO on
2013, in compliance with the JPML/s briefing
1 Countrywide's motion to stay is directed to the following five cases:
(i)
Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Bank of A:mer)ca(;orp., et al., Case No. 13
CV-00490 ("Royal Park I"); (ii) Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Bank of
~merica Corp., et al., Case No. 13 -CV-00491 ("Royal Park II") i
(iii) Phoenix
Light SF Limited, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., Case No. 13 CV
00492 ("Phoenix Light II"); (iv) Phoenix Light SF Limited. et al. v. Bank of
America Corp .• et al.. Case No. 13 CV-00494 ("Phoenix Light I") i and (v)
Silver Elms CDO II Ltd. & Kleros Preferred Funding V PLC v. Bank of America
(;orp .• et al. 1 Case No. 13-CV-00501 ("Silver Elms").
3
1
schedule.
Under the JPML's procedures, Plaintiff's' motion to
vacate will be fully submitted and considered at the next JPML
hearing on May 30, 2013.
Upon the facts and conclusions set forth below! the
Defendants' motion is granted.
I. Prior Proceedings and Facts
aintiffs commenced these five actions in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York by filing a Summons with Notice
pursuant to N.Y. civ. Pract. L. & Rules
§
305(b).
On August IS, 2011, the JPML formed the Countrywide
MBS MDL to centralize Countrywide MBS cases that "involve common
legations that Countrywide
questions of fact arising out of
misrepresented to its investors origination pract
credit quality of,
2004 to 2007.
Lit
ll
for, and
mortgage loans it originated from
In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.- Backed Sec.
., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1380! 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2011).
The JPML
selected the Central District of California as the most
convenient forum for the Countrywide MBS MDL court because the
"Countrywide parties! witnesses! and documents are located
4
primarily in Calabasas, Agoura Hills or Westlake Village,
California (within the Central
1384.
strict of California)."
Id. at
The JPML selected the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer to
oversee the Countrywide MBS MDL because "her knowledge of the
factual issues in these cases developed from handling several
cases over the past three years"
Countrywide-related securit
made her "well-positioned to preside over this MDL."
the JPML/s initial trans
order, final trans
Id.
Since
orders have
been issued in another 23 cases, including 12 cases then-pending
in the Southern
strict of New York.
conditional trans
In addition, a
order has been issued for another seven
cases (including the five
sent cases) / all of which are
related to each other and pending in the Southern District of
New York.
To date, 34 cases in all have been centralized in the
Countrywide MBS MDL.
On January 20, 2013, Countrywide removed the present
cases from New York state court on
bases of bankruptcy
"related to" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C.
under 28 U.S.C.
§
1332.
§
§
1452(a), Edge Act
632/ and diversity jurisdiction
See Royal Park I
Park II (Dkt. No.1), Phoenix
I
(Dkt. No.1), Royal
(Dkt. No.1), Phoenix
__~___ (Dkt. No.1), and Silver Elms (Dkt. No.1).
I_I
5
On January 29, 2013, Countrywide notified the JPML
that these cases were potential "
along" actions to the
Countrywide MBS MDL, as both its counsel and
were required to do.
29, 2013)
See Notice of Related Actions (Jan.
(Roeser Decl. Ex. F).
On February 6, 2013,
conditionally transferring
MDL.
aintiffs' counsel
JPML issued
CTO
I five cases to the Countrywide MBS
See JPML Conditional Transfer Order (CTO 19)
Ex. A).
After
(Roeser Decl.
aintiffs opposed the CTO, the JPML issued a
briefing schedule which directed Plaintiffs to file their motion
to vacate on or before February 27, 2013, with Countrywide
Defendants' opposition due on or before March 20, 2012.
30, 2013 the JPML is schedul
II.
On May
to hear Plaintiffs' motion.
Discussion
This Circuit Rout
Pending JPML Action
Grants Motions to S
It is well settled that district courts have the power
to stay proceedings.
248, 254, 57 S.
ct.
See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.
163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936)
(stating that "the
power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in
6
every court to control the disposition of the causes of its own
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,
and for litigants.")
"exercise [their]
Courts considering stay applications must
judgment, which must weigh competing interests
and maintain an even balance."
Id. at 254-55.
In deciding whether a stay is appropriate
private interests
1
"(1) the
the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously
with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to
the plaintiffs if delayed;
burden on the defendants;
(2) the private interests of and
(3) the interests of the courts;
the interests of persons not part
s to the civil litigation;
and (5) the public interest."
Simatele:x Manufactory Co.
912184
at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2005)
1
Comfort
Products
No. 01-1044 (RJH) (HBP)
1
1
914 F. Supp. 1056
In addition
l
1
(4)
1
(citing
Ltd. v.
2005 WL
v.
1058 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)).
where a multi district litigation
proceeding has been established
courts have rout
l
motions pending rulings by the JPML.
See e.g'
l
ly stayed
Meyers v. Bayer
AG, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1046-47 (E.D. Wis. 2001)
(staying the
question of whether there was federal question jurisdiction
pending the results
proceedings before the JPML seeking to
7
-
.....
-
....
~
..
~--~~~~--
transfer the case to another district); Aikins v. Microsoft
Corp., No. A. 00-0242, 2000 WL 310391, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 24,
2000)
(declining to dec
a motion to remand because "the
purpose of the JPML is to promote judicial economy and to
prevent inconsistent rulings [and]
[t]
s case presents
questions of fact similar to the other actions pending before
the JPML."); Rivers v. Walt
(C. D. Cal. 1997)
sney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362
(stating that "a maj ori ty of courts have
concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary
pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate
is pending with the MDL Panel because
the judicial resources
that are conserved."); Johnson v. AMR
., Nos. 95 C 7659 to
95 C 7664, 1996 WL 164415, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 1996)
(staying any ruling on a jurisdictional motion until the MDL
Panel ruled on the issue
benef
transfer and stating that "the
s of transferring [the cases] to the MDL
the body
established by Congress specifically to ameliorate the
duplicative litigation and the valuable waste of judic
resources - are obvious.")
In Ivy v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., the Second
Circuit held that it is appropriate for the JPML to trans
8
cases in which remand motions are pending for resolution by the
MDL court, stating that:
[T]he j
sdictional objections can be heard and
resolved by a single court and reviewed at the
appellate level in due course. Consistency as well as
economy is thus served. We hold, therefore, that the
MDL Panel has jurisdiction to transfer a case in which
a jurisdictional objection is pending, that objection
to be resolved by the transferee court.
901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990)
(internal citation omitted).
Thus,
when the jurisdictional issue ninvolves common questions of law
and fact" with cases in a MDL litigation, then having nthe
. heard and resolved by a single
jurisdiction objection
court .
[promotes]
[c]onsistency as well as economy."
Id.
Following Ivy, courts in this Circuit have exercised
their discretion and deferred ruling on motions to remand in
order to permit the MDL court selected by the JPML to decide
such motions.
See e.g.,
Debon~
v. Am. Home Prod. Corp., No. 04
CV-3810, 2004 WL 2601177, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2004)
(explaining that nit would be more prudent and more consistent
with the concept of multidistrict litigation to send these cases
to the MDL Court for its decision on the remand motions
. [T]ransfer of these motions to the MDL Court will best keep
with the spirit of multidistrict litigation.")
9
i
Med. Soc'
State of N.Y. v. Conn. Gen. Corp., 187 F. Supp. 2d 89, 91
(S.D.N.Y. 2001)
(finding that although a district court
"remain[s] empowered to decide pending remand motions,
II
the
"Second Circuit has . . . intimated that allowing the transferee
court to resolve the jurisdictional question may be the
preferable practice. II ) .
This Court recently stayed motions to
remand in three cases pending a decision by the JPML on transfer
in what became In re: Facebook
Inc. IPO Sec. and Deriv. Lit
.,
12-MD 2389(RWS), because the remand motions raised common issues
that should be decided by one court.
See Hubuschman v.
Zuckerberg, No. 3:12-CV-3366, slip op. at 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
II,
2012)
3367,
(Roeser Decl. Ex. G)
i
Cole v. Zuckerberg, No. 3:12-CV
ip op. at 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. II, 2012)
Ex. G) i ~~__
v~.~Z~u~c~k_e_~~, No.
(Roeser Decl.
3:12-CV-3642, slip op.
at 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. II, 2012)
(Roeser Decl. Ex. G).
In addition, the JPML has repeatedly cited to Ivy in
support of holding that cases with pending remand motions,
including the Countrywide MBS cases, should be transferred to
the MDL court for resolution of those motions.
re: Countrywide
Fin.~orp.
In
Mortg. -Backed Sec. Litig., MDL
No. 2265, slip op. at 1 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 16, 2012)
JPML Transfer Order at 1)
See
---'--=--=
(citing~,
10
Franklin Bank
901 F. 2d at 7, and
holding that the "plaintiff can present its pending motion for
remand to state court to the transferee judge .
The
transferee judge has resolved quickly remand motions in other
Countrywide MBS cases before
.") i
In re: Countrywide Fin.
Corp. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., MDL No. 2265, sl
(J.P.M.L. Dec. 14, 2011)
Order at 1)
op. at *1
ted Western Bank JPML Transfer
(same).
Various Factors Weigh in Favor of A Stay
In weighing the private interests of and burdens upon
the non-moving and moving parties, the balance favors Defendants
Countrywide and in staying the case.
First, the Plaintiffs and
their prosecution of the cases will not be
1
udiced by a stay.
the present cases, like the 34 other cases centralized in
the Countrywide MBS MDL, are "brought by investors in
Countrywide mortgage backed securities" and are based on
allegations that "Countrywide misrepresented to its investors
origination practices for, and the credit quality of, the
mortgage loans" that it originated from between 2004 through
2007.
§ee Countrywide, 812 F. Supp. 2d at 1382.
specifically, the summonses in
More
1 five present actions assert
that "[t]he offering materials issued by Defendants.
11
contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding
the underwriting standards used to issue the mortgage loans that
were pooled together into the Offerings
II
Summons at 3; see also id. at 2 ("[T]he Of
Royal Park I
ring Materials also
contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding
key statistical characteristics of the mortgage loans underlying
Securities, including the loans' loan-to-value ratios and
combined loan-to-value ratios, as well as the percentage of
owner occupied properties.").
Due to
similarity of the
aintiffs' claims to
those pending in the Countrywide MBS MDL, the JPML is 1
transfer the cases promptly.
ly to
See Franklin Bank JPML Trans
Order at 2 (stating that "[t]rans
r.
will not delay
unnecessarily the resolution of the pending remand
motion.
The trans
ree judge has resolved quickly remand
motions in other Countrywi
MBS cases before her."); United
Western Bank JPML Transfer Order at 1-2 (same).
Plaintiffs contend that a stay pending the JPML's
final transfer order "will clearly
udice Plaintiffs by
depriving them of their chosen forum for months."
10).
(Pl. Opp. at
However, the JPML is scheduled to hear Plaintiff's motion
12
on the next available date on May 30, 2013.
Courts have
determined that such short delays caused by staying proceedings
until the JPML decides whether to transfer a case usually do not
Sci. Prods.
prejudice the plaintiff.
Inc. v.
Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., No. CIVACV-05-453DGT,
2005 WL 3555926, at *1 (stating that "any stay relative to the
MDL Panel's decision will be
atively short in duration and
will not prejudice plaintiffs") i Med. Soc'
187 F. Supp. 2d at 92
of State of N.Y.,
(finding that "plaintiffs have not
demonstrated any prejudice in the event of a stay except the
slight delay in deciding the remand motion") i Rosenfeld v.
Hartford
re Ins. Co., No. 88-CV-2153, 1988 WL 49065, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1988)
the JPML because,
(staying the case pending a decision by
"[w]hile [plaintiffs] may suffer some initial
delay, once the cases are coordinated .
saved than was lost.").
more time may well
Accordingly, Plaintiffs has failed
to show any significant prejudice they would suffer, beyond the
slight delay pending the JPML decision.
Plaintiffs
so contend that the JPML transfer will
deprive the Plaintiffs of "the benefit of recent authority in
the Southern District of New York."
Opp. at 10).
They
cite to no authority, however, for the proposition that a
13
plaintiff's desire to have the law of one forum apply to its
case outweighs the efficiency and economy concerns that lead the
JPML to form an MDL proceeding in another forum.
In addition,
this Court, like the court in United Western Bank "declines to
speculate as to why Plaintiff prefers to obtain that ruling here
and further declines to assume that Plaintiff will be prejudiced
if it does not do so."
Fed.
tIns.
. as Receiver for
--------~-~---------~--~-----~-------------
United Western Bank v. Count
., No. 11 CV-02268,
--------------------------------~--------------~--
2011 WL 4372915, at *3
(D. Colo. Sept. 19, 2011)
("United
Western Bank") .
In contrast, if the instant cases are not stayed
pending a decision on transfer by the JPML, Defendants may face
the risk
inconsistent pre trial rulings on Plaintiff's
motions to remand.
Courts have expressed concerns that "any
decisions made before the MDL Panel rules on the transfer
application could be contradicted by another court or might need
to be relitigated."
Animal Sci. Prods., 2005 WL 3555926, at *1.
Thus, "the risk of hardship to [defendant] of engaging in
duplicative motion practice and discovery proceedings outweighs
any prejudice that could potential
inure to [plaintiff].
/I
_N_o_r_t_h ____M~e_r_c_k~& C_o~.~~~, No. 05-CV-6475L, 2005 WL 2921638, at
_v.
__
*2
(W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2005).
14
As discussed above, there exists extensive overlap
between the factual issues in the instant remand motions and in
the cases before Judge Pfaelzer.
Those other cases involved
countrywide MBS backed by loans purchased from the same bankrupt
originators 2 that are at issue here, pursuant to the same loan
purchase agreements, involving the same proofs
some instances, the same MBS.
related in simi
claim and in
Courts have found cases to be
circumstances.
~P~e~n~s~l~'o~e~n~f~o~n~d=s~.A~B~P v~.~C~o~u=n=t~~-=-=~_____-=~~.,
__
10 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
447 B.R. 302, 309
("related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction
existed based on the Purchase Agreement between CHL and AHM, and
CHL's indemnification claims in the AHM bankruptcy proceeding) i
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. as Receiver for Franklin Bank, S.S.B. v.
Countrywide Sec. Corp., No. 12 CV-03279-MRP (MANx), slip op. at
4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012)
("related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction
existed based on purchase agreements between CHL and various
bankrupt originators, including AHM, Alliance Bancorp, Alliance
Bancorp, Inc.[ Cameron Financial Group, Inc., ComUnity Lending,
2 The Bankrupt Originators in these cases are 1st Republic Mortgage Bankers,
Ace Mortgage Funding, LLC, Alliance Bancorp, Alliance Bancorp, Inc., American
Home Mortgage Corporation, Cameron Financial Group, Inc., ComUnity Lending,
Inc., Fieldstone Mortgage Company, First NLC Financial Services, LLC, GMAC
Mortgage, LLC, Home Savings Mortgage, Homebanc Mortgage Corporation,
Mountain View Mortgage Company, Prime Mortgage Financial, Inc., Premier
Mortgage Funding, Inc., Residential Funding Company, and Southern Star
Mortgage Corp.
See Removal Notices at ~ 10.
15
Inc. t Fieldstone Mortgage CompanYt First NLC Financial Services,
LLC t and Premier Mortgage Funding
t
Inc. and CHLts
indemnification claims in their bankruptcy proceedings)
Luther v. Count
(Ex. J);
No. 12 CV-05125 MRP (MANx)
slip. op. at 5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2012)
t
("related toll
bankruptcy jurisdiction existed based on purchase agreements
between CHL and Residential Funding Company and GMAC Mortgage t
LLC and CHLts indemnification claims in their bankruptcy
proceedings) .
In sum t due to the overlap between both the legal and
factual issues presented by the remand motions in the instant
cases and the remand motions that Judge Pfaelzer has previously
decided in other cases centralized in the
MBS MDL.
"Rather than have the potential for inconsistent decisions on
the common issue [underlying mUltiple motions to remand]
t
th[ese] action[s] should be stayed pending action on the
transfer to the MDL.II
Mick v. GlaxoSmithKline
t
PLC t No. 08-CV
386, 2008 WL 4147555, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2008).
In addition, courts in this Circuit have recognized
that stays pending transfer "will also conserve judicial
resources, one of the fundamental goals of multidistrict
16
litigation practice."
North, 2005 WL 2921638, at *2, Animal
Sci. Prods., 2005 WL 3555926, at *1
(~in
granting the stay
[pending JPML transfer] valuable judicial resources will be
preserved.")
i
Med. Soc'
(~[p]ermitting
of State of N.Y., 187 F. Supp. 2d at 92
the MDL court to decide the [remand] issue
would minimize the duplication of judicial resources.")
Plaintiffs contend that
~[t]here
will be no
'duplication of judicial resources'" because the remand motions
will
~inevitably
focus[]" on a
~fresh
fact-specific inquiry"
which either this Court or Judge Pfaelzer can undertake.
Opp. at 2, 12).
(Pl.
While any court may be capable of deciding the
issues, Judge Pfaelzer has already decided the same legal issues
presented by Plaintiffs' remand motions and has familiarity with
the remand issues raised in other Countrywide MBS cases,
including Franklin Bank and United Western Bank.
Judge Pfaelzer
has previously examined the same indemnification agreements
entered into by the same bankrupt third party lenders that
originated from the same loans that backed the securities
purchased by the Plaintiffs here.
efficienc
Thus, there are compelling
s in allowing Judge Pfaelzer to resolve
remand motions.
17
aintiffs'
Indeed, other federal courts have found that
efficiency would be served in staying MBS suits against
Countrywide where plaintiffs were pressing for immediate
resolution of their remand motions pending JPML transfer.
., United Western Bank, 2011 WL 4372915, at *2
proceedings pending transfer)
it Ins.
(staying
("United Western Bank"); Fed .
. as Receiver for Franklin Bank v.
Fin. Corp., No. 11-CV-04188, slip. op.
(same).
See,
(S.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2012)
Numerous courts in this Circuit have likewise
recognized that "valuable judicial resources will be preserved"
through a stay in such circumstances.
at *2; see also Med. Soc'
North, 2005 WL 2921638,
of State of N'Y'I 187 F. Supp. 2d at
92 ("[p]ermitting the MDL court to decide the [remand] issue
. would minimize the duplication of judicial resources")
Debono
I
2004 WL 2601177, at *1
i
(deferring remand decision
because "numerous motions to remand have been filed [in the MDL
court], with more likely to come. ") .
forming the MDL,
"[c]entralization .
As the JPML stated in
will ensure that a
single judge presides over these actions providing consistency,
preventing conflicting rulings, and greatly reducing the
duplicative expenditure of judicial resources.
Countrywide Fin. Corp., 812 F. Supp. 2d at 1383.
18
In re
Finally, The JPML's transfer orders in United Western
Bank, 2011 WL 4372915 and Franklin Bank, No. ll-CV-04188, slip.
op., suggest that it is likely that the JPML will transfer the
instant five cases as all of the cases "involve[] common
questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL
No. 2265, and.
. transfer will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation.
2265, sl
1f
op. at I,
United Western Bank JPML Transfer, MDL No.
(Doc. No. 280)
i
accord Franklin Bank JPML
Transfer Order, MDL No. 2265, slip op. at 1 (same)
(Ex. E).
Upon its review of these actions, the JPML also conditionally
transferred the present cases, along with two others, to the MDL
court because it appeared they "involve questions of fact that
are common to the actions previously transferred to the Central
District of California."
No. 384)
2 0 13 )
See MDL No. 2265, slip op. at 1 (Doc.
(J.P.M.L. Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-19), Feb. 6,
(Ex . A).
In weighing the relevant factors and interests of the
part
s and the courts, a stay would be an appropriate exercise
of this Court's discretion.
A stay is not likely to prejudice
or cause hardship to the Plaintiffs, as any delay resulting from
a stay will likely be of short duration.
19
In addition, a stay
will eliminate the risk of inconsistent rulings and conserve
judicial resources.
III. Conclusion
Based upon the conclusions set forth above, the
Defendants' motion to stay is granted.
It is so ordered.
New York, NY
April I~ 2013
U.S.D.J.
20
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?