Streeter v. Walden University, LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2765) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 4/5/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2765, MD/1:16-cv-03460, MN/0:16-cv-04037, OHS/2:16-cv-00962 (TLL)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: WALDEN UNIVERSITY, LLC,
DOCTORAL PROGRAM LITIGATION

MDL No. 2765

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Plaintiff in the Southern District of Ohio Thornhill action moves under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of Minnesota or, alternatively, the
Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiff in the District of Minnesota Bleess potential tag-along action
supports the motion. Pro se plaintiff in the District of Maryland has indicated that he opposes
transfer.1 This litigation consists of three actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A.
Defendants2 oppose centralization. No other plaintiffs responded to the motion.
After considering all argument of counsel, we conclude that Section 1407 centralization of
this litigation is not necessary. The actions here involve common factual issues arising from
plaintiffs’ allegations regarding their experiences as Walden University doctoral degree candidates.
Plaintiffs contend that Walden misrepresented how much their doctoral studies would cost and the
time frame in which their degree could be obtained. Plaintiffs further contend that Walden operates
an unfairly drawn-out dissertation process that is fraught with inefficiencies, ensuring that students
do not receive the timely responses and attention that they were promised. Plaintiffs also contend
that the process is beset with inordinate turnover of faculty and supervisory committee chairs and
members. Once students have spent considerable time and expense in the Walden program, they
allegedly are left with two options in the face of the delays: quit the program (essentially throwing
away all of the time and money expended), or continue to enroll in additional classes with the hope
of eventually gaining a degree. In litigation such as this, where only a few actions are involved, the
proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate.
See In re: Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. (No. II), 753 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010). Moving
plaintiff has failed to do so here.
This litigation involves only three actions and one potential tag-along action pending across
three districts. One of the actions is an individual pro se case pending in the District of Maryland,
and two of the three class actions (the Southern District of Ohio Thornhill and the District of
1

The pro se plaintiff in the District of Maryland action filed a notice of interlocutory appeal with
the Fourth Circuit, in which he argues in an informal brief that the motion to transfer would, if
granted, be costly and inconvenient for him. See Streeter v. Walden Univ. LLC, et al., No. 17-1004
(4th Cir., filed Jan. 3, 2017).
2

Laureate International Universities, Walden University, LLC, Laureate Education. Inc.

-2Minnesota Wright actions) are brought by plaintiffs who are represented by common counsel.
Cooperation among the few involved courts and counsel appears to be a workable alternative to
centralization in these circumstances.3 Moreover, defendants’ pending motions under the first-to-file
rule in the District of Minnesota Wright action and the District of Minnesota Bleess potential tagalong action carry the added potential to streamline this litigation without resort to the Section 1407
framework.
If needed as this litigation progresses, various mechanisms are available to minimize or
eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery in the absence of an MDL. Notices of deposition
can be filed in all related actions; the parties can stipulate that any discovery relevant to more than
one action can be used in all those actions; and the involved courts may direct the parties to
coordinate other pretrial activities. See, e.g., In re: Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent
Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION, Fourth, § 20.14
(2004).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for Section 1407 centralization of the
actions listed on Schedule A is denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

3

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

See, e.g., In re: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 763
F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (denying centralization of four actions in which plaintiffs in three
actions shared counsel and concluding that alternatives to formal centralization, such as voluntary
cooperation among the few involved counsel and courts appeared viable).

IN RE: WALDEN UNIVERSITY, LLC,
DOCTORAL PROGRAM LITIGATION

MDL No. 2765

SCHEDULE A

District of Maryland
STREETER v. WALDEN UNIVERSITY, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!03460
District of Minnesota
WRIGHT, ET AL. v. WALDEN UNIVERSITY, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:16!04037
Southern District of Ohio
THORNHILL v. WALDEN UNIVERSITY, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16!00962