Hermanson v. Credit Protection Association LP

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (3 in AZ/2:15-cv-02049, 3 in FLM/8:15-cv-01309, 3 in FLM/8:15-cv-02636, 3 in FLM/8:16-cv-00267, 3 in FLS/1:16-cv-21072, 5 in MDL No. 2716, 3 in TXN/3:15-cv -03239, 3 in TXN/3:16-cv-00064, 3 in TXS/3:15-cv-00154), ( 4 in MDL No. 2716), ( 1 in MDL No. 2716) The motion to transfer, pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 6/2/2016. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2716, AZ/2:15-cv-02049, FLM/8:15-cv-01309, FLM/8:15-cv-02636, FLM/8:16-cv-00267, FLS/1:16-cv-21072, TXN/3:15-cv-03239, TXN/3:16-cv-00064, TXS/3:15-cv-00154 (DLS)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P.,
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA)
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2716

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Common defendant Credit Protection Association, L.P. (CPA) moves
under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize eight actions in the Northern District of Texas. The eight
actions are pending in the Northern District of Texas (two actions), the District of Arizona, the
Middle District of Florida (three actions), the Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District
of Texas, as listed on the attached Schedule A.1 Responding plaintiffs oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny CPA’s motion. These
actions share certain factual issues arising from allegations that CPA violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and, in some cases, state statutory
law, by using an automatic dialing system to repeatedly make debt collection calls to plaintiffs’ cell
phones without their express consent. These factual issues, while common, appear to be relatively
straightforward, and discovery is unlikely to be unusually burdensome or time-consuming.
Moreover, in two of the actions in the Middle District of Florida, discovery is set to close in early
August. Centralization at this late juncture thus appears unlikely to result in substantial efficiencies.2
In seeking centralization, CPA cites, inter alia, the parties’ protracted and sometimes
contentious negotiations concerning the scheduling of a general Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and the
deposition of CPA’s former in-house counsel. Indeed, the record indicates that the relationship
between the two sides’ lawyers has been less than amicable.3 Be that as it may, the Panel does not

*

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and Judge Catherine D. Perry took no part in the decision of this

matter.
1

The Panel has been informed of one additional related federal action, which is pending in
the Northern District of Texas.
2

See, e.g.,In re: Lifewatch, Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act. (TCPA) Litig., 2015 WL 6080848,
at *1 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 13, 2015) (denying centralization, in part because of the procedural disparity of
the subject actions).
3

All plaintiffs who are represented by counsel are represented by the same law firm, and a
single law firm is coordinating CPA’s defense in all actions.

-2function as an attorney disciplinary authority, and Section 1407 does not contemplate centralization
for the purpose of curbing arguably questionable conduct on the part of counsel. To the extent, if
any, that the lawyers on either side of this litigation have legitimate grounds to object to their
opponents’ tactics in prosecuting or defending these cases, the Federal Rules provide recourse.
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
Ellen Segal Huvelle

Charles R. Breyer
R. David Proctor

IN RE: CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P.,
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA)
LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

District of Arizona
HERMANSON v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION LP,
C.A. No. 2:15-02049
Middle District of Florida
BLOUNT, ET AL. v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, LP,
C.A. No. 8:15-01309
RUSSO, ET AL. v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, LP,
C.A. No. 8:15-02636
MONTANEZ, ET AL. v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, LP,
C.A. No. 8:16-00267
Southern District of Florida
ALANIA v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, LP,
C.A. No. 1:16-21072
Northern District of Texas
ADAMS, ET AL. v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION LP,
C.A. No. 3:15-03239
WATSON, ET AL. v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION LP,
C.A. No. 3:16-00064
Southern District of Texas
MORRIS, ET AL. v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, LP,
C.A. No. 3:15-00154

MDL No. 2716