Daniel Jung v. Billy McFarland et al
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (10 in CAC/2:17-cv-03245, 16 in FLS/1:17-cv-21683, 21 in MDL No. 2787, 12 in NJ/2:17-cv-03018, 9 in NYS/1:17-cv-03296, 9 in NYS/1:17-cv-03461, 9 in NYS/1:1 7-cv-03541), ( 1 in MDL No. 2787) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 8/2/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2787, CAC/2:17-cv-03245, FLS/1:17-cv-21683, NJ/2:17-cv-03018, NYS/1:17-cv-03296, NYS/1:17-cv-03461, NYS/1:17-cv-03541 (LAH)
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
IN RE: FYRE FESTIVAL LITIGATION
MDL No. 2787
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in one action (Herlihy) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Southern District of New York. This litigation currently consists of
six actions pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule A. The actions arise out of the
cancellation of a music festival known as the Fyre Festival, originally scheduled to take place in the
Bahamas in the spring of 2017. The defendants in this litigation are entities and individuals
allegedly responsible for organizing and promoting the Festival: Fyre Media, Inc., and its alleged
owners William McFarland and Jeffrey Atkins; Fyre Festival, LLC; Grant Margolin; Matte Projects,
LLC; and 42West, LLC.
Plaintiffs in four actions support centralization, and variously suggest the Southern District
of New York, the Southern District of Florida, and the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff in the Central
District of California action (Jung) opposes centralization, but requests his district if centralization
is granted over his objection. The sole responding defendant, Matte Projects, LLC, supports
centralization in the Southern District of New York.
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 putative class actions undoubtedly share factual questions arising
from allegations that defendants made false and misleading representations in promoting and
marketing the Fyre Festival, a luxury music festival planned for the Bahamas over two weekends
beginning in late April 2017, and that ticket holders suffered damages as a result of its cancellation.
But the record before us indicates that informal coordination is a practicable alternative to
centralization. There are only six actions pending in four districts and a correspondingly limited
number of involved plaintiffs’ counsel. Additionally, the common defendants have not entered an
appearance in any action or in the Panel proceedings, and default proceedings against them have
commenced in two actions.1 At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that just one of these
Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.
Fyre Media, Inc., McFarland, and Atkins are defendants in all six actions. Fyre Festival,
LLC, is a defendant in two actions. In Reel, the court has entered defaults against defendants Fyre
Media, Inc., Fyre Festival, LLC, and Atkins. In Herlihy, a motion for entry of default is pending as
to defendants Fyre Media, Inc., and McFarland.
-2defendants is likely to appear in these actions.2 Moreover, the only defendants that have appeared
to date – Matte Projects, LLC, and 42West, LLC – are sued solely in the Reel action, and thus require
little, if any, coordination with the other actions. In these circumstances, informal cooperation
among the parties and the involved courts should be sufficient to minimize duplicative pretrial
proceedings and the risk of 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
Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor
Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that defendant Atkins is in the process of retaining counsel
and intends to appear. The record also reflects that Fyre Festival, LLC, is in involuntary bankruptcy
proceedings, and a criminal case has commenced against McFarland in the Southern District of New
IN RE: FYRE FESTIVAL LITIGATION
MDL No. 2787
Central District of California
JUNG v. MCFARLAND, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03245
Southern District of Florida
REEL, ET AL. v. MCFARLAND, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-21683
District of New Jersey
PETROZZIELLO v. FYRE MEDIA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03018
Southern District of New York
HERLIHY, ET AL. v. FYRE MEDIA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-03296
DALY, ET AL. v. MCFARLAND, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-03461
JUTLA v. FYRE MEDIA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-03541
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?