Noble v. John Sebastian et al

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2745) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 12/7/2016. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2745, DE/1:16-cv-00406, PAE/2:16-cv-03303 (TLL)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: THOMAS E. NOBLE LITIGATION

MDL No. 2745

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiff Thomas E. Noble moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize
two actions in an “impartial” district outside the Third Circuit.1 The actions, which are listed on the
attached Schedule A, are pending in the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff also asks the Panel to reopen certain cases previously closed in the District
of Delaware. No defendants responded to the Section 1407 motion.2
After considering plaintiff’s arguments, we deny centralization. The two actions have little,
if any, factual overlap, They appear primarily to stem from plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with a
September 13, 2004, order issued by Judge Kent A. Jordan, who was then a judge for the District
of Delaware, in an earlier civil rights action brought by plaintiff. In that order, Judge Jordan barred
plaintiff from filing any future pro se civil rights complaints in the District of Delaware without prior
court approval. The Panel has no authority to review either Judge Jordan’s barring order or
subsequent orders giving effect to the barring order.3 See In re: Wells Fargo Inspection Fee Litig.,
158 F. Supp. 3d 1366, 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2016) (“The Panel has neither the statutory authority nor the
inclination to review decisions of district courts, whether they are transferor or transferee courts.”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To the extent that the actions share factual issues,
plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that centralization will serve the overall convenience of the parties
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Additionally, plaintiff’s request for centralization in an “impartial” district outside the Third
Circuit misconstrues the Panel’s role. As the Panel has held, the possibility that another district
judge may be more favorably disposed to a particular litigant’s position is not a factor in the Section
1407 analysis. See In re: Glenn W. Turner Enters. Litig., 368 F. Supp. 805, 806 (J.P.M.L.1973)
(“[T]he prospect of an unfavorable ruling by the transferee court or the possibility that another
district judge may be more favorably disposed to a litigant’s contention is clearly not a factor
*

Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.

2

In his notice waiving oral argument, counsel for defendant Judge Kent A. Jordan stated that
defendant does not oppose centralization in the District of Delaware.
3

The Panel also lacks authority to direct a district court to re-open closed cases.

-2considered by the Panel in exercising its discretion under Section 1407.”); see also In re: David
Kissi, et al., Litig. (No. II), 923 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1369 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (“[Movants’] stated purpose
for seeking transfer to the Central District of California–evading the perceived bias of the judges that
have been assigned these actions in the [two putative transferor districts]–is not a proper basis for
centralization.”); In re: Isidoro Rodriguez Litig., 829 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2011)
(rejecting movants’ request for centralization before an “impartial panel”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

IN RE: THOMAS E. NOBLE LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

District of Delaware
NOBLE v. JOHN SEBASTIAN, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-00406
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
NOBLE v. JORDAN, C.A. No. 2:16-03303

MDL No. 2745