Abplanalp v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2759) 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. 2759, NCW/3:15-cv-00203, OHN/1:16-cv-01102, OHN/3:16-cv-01234, PAM/1:16-cv-01387, PAM/3:16-cv-01519 (dn)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.,
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
(TCPA) LITIGATION

MDL No. 2759

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Common defendant United Collection Bureau, Inc. (UCB) moves under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize five actions in the Northern District of Ohio. The actions, which are
listed on the attached Schedule A, are pending in three districts. The Panel has been informed of
three additional related federal actions.
Plaintiffs in the Western District of North Carolina Abplanalp, Northern District of Ohio
Compton, and Middle District of Pennsylvania Dickson and Ehrhart actions oppose centralization.
Plaintiff in the Northern District of Ohio Meredith action neither supports nor opposes centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny UCB’s motion. These
actions share certain factual issues arising from allegations that UCB violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and, in some cases, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state
statutory law, by using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice
to make debt collection calls to plaintiffs’ cell phones without their consent. These factual issues,
while common, appear to be relatively straightforward, and discovery is unlikely to be unusually
burdensome or time-consuming. In contrast, the amount of individualized discovery into such
matters as the number of calls each plaintiff received, the process and documentation involved in the
obtaining (or revocation) of consent, and the timing and circumstances thereof seems likely to be
quite significant.
The procedural posture of the actions also counsels against centralization. In the Northern
District of Ohio Compton action, the discovery cutoff is February 1, 2017, and in the Middle District
of Pennsylvania Dickson action, the cutoff is February 28, 2017. Centralization at this juncture thus
appears unlikely to produce significant efficiencies.1
*

One or more Panel members who could be members of the putative class in this litigation
have renounced their participation in that class and have participated in this decision.
1

See, e.g., In re: Credit Prot. Ass’n, L.P., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act. (TCPA) Litig., — F.
Supp. 3d —, 2016 WL 3101832, at *1 (J.P.M.L. June 2, 2016) (denying centralization, in part
because of the procedural disparity of the subject actions); In re: Lifewatch, Inc., Tel. Consumer
(continued...)

-2Finally, the limited number of involved counsel suggests that cooperation and informal
coordination are practicable.2 UCB is represented in all actions by Troutman Sanders, LLP;
plaintiffs in three actions (Northern District of Ohio Compton and Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dickson and Ehrhart) are represented by Kimmel & Silverman, P.C.; and plaintiffs in the three
potential tag-along actions are represented by Hyslip & Taylor, LLC LPA.
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

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

1

(...continued)
Prot. Act. (TCPA) Litig., 140 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1343 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (same).
2

See, e.g., In re: Cordarone (Amiodarone Hydrochloride) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods.
Liab. Litig., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2016 WL 3101841, at *2 (J.P.M.L. June 2, 2016).

IN RE: UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.,
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
(TCPA) LITIGATION

MDL No. 2759

SCHEDULE A

Western District of North Carolina
ABPLANALP v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., C.A. No. 3:15-00203
Northern District of Ohio
MEREDITH v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., C.A. No. 1:16-01102
COMPTON v. UNITED COLLECTIONS BUREAU, INC., C.A. No. 3:16-01234
Middle District of Pennsylvania
DICKSON v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., C.A. No. 1:16-01387
EHRHART v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., C.A. No. 3:16-01519