Stephens v. Air Methods Corporation et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (7 in ALN/2:16-cv-01659, 9 in CO/1:16-cv-02723, 11 in MDL No. 2760, 8 in OKW/5:16-cv-00843, 7 in SC/3:15-cv-01683), ( 1 in MDL No. 2760) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 2/2/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2760, ALN/2:16-cv-01659, CO/1:16-cv-02723, OKW/5:16-cv-00843, SC/3:15-cv-01683 (TB)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: EMERGENCY HELICOPTER
AIR AMBULANCE RATE LITIGATION

MDL No. 2760

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Defendants Air Methods Corporation and Rocky Mountain Holdings,
LLC (collectively, AMC) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation in the District of Colorado. This litigation consists of four actions—pending in the
Northern District of Alabama, the District of Colorado, the Western District of Oklahoma, and the
District of South Carolina—as listed on Schedule A. Plaintiffs in these four actions support
centralization in the District of Colorado. Plaintiffs in the Western District of Oklahoma action
alternatively suggest the Western District of Oklahoma and the District of South Carolina as
potential transferee districts. The Oklahoma plaintiffs also suggest that, if the Panel centralizes this
litigation, we exclude their claims against two non-AMC defendants—Air Evac EMS Inc. and
EagleMed, LLC—from the MDL.
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. Where only a minimal number of 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). Defendants have
not met that burden here.
There is no dispute that these actions share some common factual questions arising from
allegations that AMC, one of the largest providers of helicopter air ambulance services in the
country, overcharged patients for these services. These common factual issues, though—such as
determining what is a reasonable price for helicopter air ambulance services—are not particularly
complex. Additionally, each complaint asserts claims under different state laws. Even the sole
putative nationwide class action in the District of Colorado asserts claims under Colorado and/or
Pennsylvania law that are not asserted in the other actions. These differing state-law claims are
neither complex nor numerous.
Furthermore, there are only four actions pending in this litigation. At oral argument, counsel
for plaintiffs stated that they would not oppose transfer to the District of Colorado through a Section

*

One or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation
have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this decision.

-21404 motion.1 In these circumstances, alternatives to centralization such as Section 1404 transfer,
or informal cooperation among the relatively few involved attorneys and coordination among the
involved courts, are eminently feasible and will be sufficient to minimize any potential for
duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial rulings. 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
Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).
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

1

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Counsel for AMC agreed generally to transfer through Section 1404, but argued that
defendants anticipate that additional class actions will be filed in other states. The “mere possibility”
of additional actions, though, does not support centralization of this litigation. In re California Wine
Inorganic Arsenic Levels Prods. Liab. Litig., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1362, 1363 (J.P.M.L. 2015).

IN RE: EMERGENCY HELICOPTER
AIR AMBULANCE RATE LITIGATION

MDL No. 2760

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Alabama
STEPHENS v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-01659
District of Colorado
SCARLETT v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-02723
Western District of Oklahoma
BARTLEY, ET AL. v. AIR EVAC EMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16-00843
District of South Carolina
ADAMS v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-01683