Christensen v. Smith et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2650), ( 21 in MDL No. 2650, 17 in UT/2:14-cv-00784, 19 in WY/1:14-cv-00186) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 10/9/2015. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2650, UT/2:14-cv-00784, WY/1:14-cv-00186 (DLS)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ENERGY DRILLING, LLC, CONTRACT LITIGATION

MDL No. 2650

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Energy Drilling, LLC (Energy) and Gerald K. Smith (a/k/a Gary Smith),
Ray Ash, Robert Jennings, Austin Smith, and Rod Esson move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize
the two actions listed on the attached Schedule A in the District of Wyoming. The actions are
pending in that district and the District of Utah. Energy is the plaintiff in the Wyoming action, and
the individual movants are defendants in the Utah action. Gary Smith, who is Energy’s chief
executive officer, also is a third-party defendant in the Wyoming action.1 Pacific Energy & Mining
Company (Pacific), which is the defendant/third-party plaintiff in the Wyoming action, and Dean H.
Christensen, who is the pro se plaintiff in the Utah action, oppose centralization.
After considering the parties’ arguments, we deny centralization. The two actions do share
certain factual issues concerning the performance of a May 8, 2014, contract under which Energy
agreed to drill a well for Pacific in Grand County, Utah, a well in which Christensen asserts that he
has an ownership interest. But the common factual issues essentially are limited to allegations that
Energy, Gary Smith, and/or Energy employees (1) engaged in, or encouraged others to engage in,
conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the drilling operation, and (2) induced one or more trucking
companies to falsify their invoices. The complaint in the Utah action, contains unique and expansive
allegations that Energy is a shell company, that the individual defendants operated a Ponzi scheme,
and that defendants Smith, Austin, and Jennings slandered and libeled Christensen. Given this
limited factual overlap and the minimal number of actions, creation of an MDL is not warranted.
Informal coordination and cooperative efforts by the parties and involved courts can minimize or
eliminate duplicative discovery and other pretrial proceedings. 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 Litig., Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

1

In the Section 1407 motion, movants aver that all defendants in the Utah action are
or were members or employees of Energy.

-2IT 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

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: ENERGY DRILLING, LLC, CONTRACT LITIGATION

MDL No. 2650

SCHEDULE A

District of Utah
CHRISTENSEN v. SMITH, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00784
District of Wyoming
ENERGY DRILLING, LLC v. PACIFIC ENERGY & MINING COMPANY,
C.A. No. 1:14-00186