Jeffries et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (18 in ALN/2:16-cv-01987, 13 in CAC/2:16-cv-07405, 15 in CAN/3:15-cv-02159, 16 in CAN/3:16-cv-06326, 21 in CAN/3:16-cv-07040, 18 in FLM/8:16-cv-03318, 35 i n MDL No. 2766, 15 in NJ/1:16-cv-07509, 13 in UT/2:16-cv-00966), ( 1 in MDL No. 2766), ( 2 in MDL No. 2766) 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. 2766, ALN/2:16-cv-01987, CAC/2:16-cv-07405, CAN/3:15-cv-02159, CAN/3:16-cv-06326, CAN/3:16-cv-07040, FLM/8:16-cv-03318, NJ/1:16-cv-07509, UT/2:16-cv-00966 (SM)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: WELLS FARGO FRAUDULENT
ACCOUNT OPENING LITIGATION

MDL No. 2766

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the District of Utah Mitchell action move under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the District of Utah. Plaintiffs in the
Northern District of California Jabbari action oppose centralization or, alternatively, support
centralization in the Northern District of California. All other plaintiffs support centralization and
variously support the District of Utah, the District of New Jersey, the Northern District of California,
the Northern District of Alabama, the Middle District of Florida, or the Central District of California
as transferee district. Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo & Company (together,
Wells Fargo) ask the Panel to defer ruling on the motion until the Panel’s May 2017 hearing session
or, alternatively, to deny the motion. This litigation consists of eight actions pending in six districts.1
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that centralization is
not necessary at this time for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions share allegations that Wells Fargo employees used
confidential information to open fraudulent accounts in customers’ names to meet sales goals, and
that Wells Fargo encouraged, knew of, or should have known of this practice. All actions allege
overlapping putative nationwide or statewide putative class claims, and all cases will involve
overlapping pretrial motions regarding class certification and arbitration. But the parties in the
Northern District of California Jabbari action recently reached a nationwide class settlement in
principle, a motion for preliminary approval of their proposed settlement is due in less than a month,
and a hearing on the motion is set to take place in less than two months. At oral argument, counsel
for the Jabbari plaintiffs represented that all interested parties will have the opportunity to object to
or otherwise raise issues as to the adequacy of the proposed settlement in the Northern District of
California. Centralization at this time could delay a class-wide settlement with little or no benefit
to the parties and putative class members. See, e.g., In re: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Mortg.
Corp. Force-Placed Hazard Ins. Litig., 959 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2013).

*

Certain Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this docket have
renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in the decision.
1

The Panel has been notified of two additional related actions pending in the Central District
of California and the Southern District of California.

-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: WELLS FARGO FRAUDULENT
ACCOUNT OPENING LITIGATION

MDL No. 2766

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Alabama
JEFFRIES, ET AL. v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-01987
Central District of California
FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-07405
Northern District of California
JABBARI, ET AL. v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-02159
CHERNAVSKY v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-06326
CASON, ET AL. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-07040
Middle District of Florida
STANTON v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:16-03318
District of New Jersey
BLANCHARD v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-07509
District of Utah
MITCHELL, ET AL. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-00966