Cook v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2793) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 10/4/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2793, ILN/1:17-cv-02452, ILN/1:17-cv-02718, ILN/1:17-cv-03154, INN/1:17-cv-00177, INS/1:17-cv-00730, INS/3:16-cv-00225 (dld)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC,
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
(TCPA) LITIGATION (NO. III)

MDL No. 2793

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC (ERC) moves under 28
U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.
This litigation consists of six actions—three actions pending in the Northern District of Illinois, one
action pending in the Northern District of Indiana, and two actions pending in the Southern District
of Indiana—as listed on Schedule A.1 Plaintiffs in the actions on the motion—all of whom are
represented by the same counsel—do not oppose centralization in the Northern District of Illinois.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. These actions share some common factual questions relating to allegations
that ERC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by placing
debt collection calls to plaintiffs’ cellular telephones using an automated system, without the
plaintiffs’ consent. These factual issues, while common, appear to be relatively straightforward, and
discovery is unlikely to be unusually burdensome or time-consuming. In contrast, the amount of
individualized discovery into such matters as the numbers of calls each plaintiff received, the process
and documentation involved in obtaining or revoking of consent, and the timing and circumstances
thereof may be significant. The rapid progression of a prior MDL involving TCPA claims against
ERC from centralization to settlement demonstrates the relatively straightforward nature of the issues
and claims in this litigation. See In re Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig.,
899 F. Supp. 2d 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2012).
Additionally, the procedural posture of the actions counsels against centralization. Fact
discovery in several actions is scheduled to be completed within six months. Centralization at this
juncture appears unlikely to produce significant efficiencies and may delay resolution of these
actions.2 See, e.g., In re Lifewatch, Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig., 140 F. Supp. 3d
1

The Panel has been notified of five potentially related actions pending in the Northern
District of Indiana. Plaintiffs in these related actions are represented by the same counsel as
plaintiffs in the actions on the motion.
2

We denied a motion to centralize several TCPA actions involving ERC last June. See In
(continued...)

-21342, 1343 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (denying centralization in part because of procedural disparity of the
subject actions).
Finally, the limited number of involved counsel and the pendency of actions in only three
adjacent districts suggest that cooperation and informal coordination are practicable alternatives to
centralization. ERC is represented in all the actions by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.
Plaintiffs, likewise, are represented in each action by Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
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
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

2

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

(...continued)
re Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig. (No. II), 190 F. Supp. 3d
1351 (J.P.M.L. 2016). Although that Section 1407 motion involved putative class actions, eleven
individual TCPA actions (like those at issue here) were noticed as related to the motion. All eleven
of those actions have since been resolved, primarily through settlement. The actions on the present
motion likely are susceptible to similarly quick resolution, making them poor candidates for
centralized treatment.

IN RE: ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC,
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
(TCPA) LITIGATION (NO. III)

MDL No. 2793

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Illinois
COOK v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-02452
KAYYAL v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-02718
HILL v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-03154
Northern District of Indiana
WEAVER v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-00177
Southern District of Indiana
MARTIN v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-00730
ROBINSON v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, C.A. No. 3:16-00225