Hancock v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 33

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2797), ( 2 in MDL No. 2797) Transferring 3 action(s) to Judge Andrew J. Guilford in the C.D. California.Signed by Judge Marjorie O. Rendell, Acting Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 10/5/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2797, CAN/3:17-cv-04324, CAN/3:17-cv-04346, NYS/1:17-cv-05806 (CMD)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: WELLS FARGO AUTO INSURANCE
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2797

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in the Southern District of New York action listed on Schedule
A moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern
District of New York. This litigation consists of three actions pending in two districts, as listed on
Schedule A.1 Plaintiff in two Southern District of New York potential tag-along actions and
defendant National General Insurance Company (National General) support the motion. Plaintiffs
in five Northern District of California actions and potential tag-along actions and defendants Wells
Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo Bank, and together, Wells Fargo)
suggest centralization in the Northern District of California.2 Plaintiffs in three Central District of
California potential tag-along actions suggest centralization in the Central District of California.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central District of California will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
All responding parties agree that the actions share common factual questions arising out of
allegations that Wells Fargo and National General engaged in a nationwide scheme to place
unwanted and unnecessary insurance on automobiles, and that defendants caused plaintiffs and
putative class members harm by charging them for this unneeded insurance and, in some cases,
reporting them to credit agencies and repossessing their vehicles. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

*

Judge Sarah S. Vance and Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this
matter. Additionally, 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.
1

The Panel also has been notified of eleven related actions pending in the Central District
of California, the Northern District of California, and the Southern District of New York. These and
any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.
2

At oral argument, Wells Fargo’s counsel represented that Wells Fargo also would be
amenable to centralization in the Central District of California.

-2We find that centralization in the Central District of California is appropriate. Eleven of the
fourteen pending related actions are located in California, and three of those actions are pending
before Judge Andrew J. Guilford—an experienced transferee judge who we are confident will steer
this litigation on a prudent course. Moreover, it is alleged that key entities and individuals with
direct responsibility for the alleged conduct in this litigation are located in this district and, therefore,
relevant documents and witnesses may be located there. Indeed, at oral argument, Wells Fargo
represented that the primary witnesses would be found in the Central District of California.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Central District of California are transferred to the Central District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________
Marjorie O. Rendell
Acting Chair
Charles R. Breyer
R. David Proctor

Lewis A. Kaplan
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: WELLS FARGO AUTO INSURANCE
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2797

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
HANCOCK v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-04324
PRESTON v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-04346
Southern District of New York
JACOB v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:17-05806