Lofton v. Collecto, Inc.

Filing 15

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2513) Transferring 2 action(s) to Judge Richard G. Stearns in the D. Massachusetts.Signed by Judge John G. Heyburn II, Chairman, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 2/18/2014. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2513, CAN/4:13-cv-03293, MA/1:13-cv-11944, MIE/4:13-cv-13156 (TB)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: COLLECTO, INC., TELEPHONE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION

MDL No. 2513

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff in a Northern District of
California action moves for centralization of this litigation in that district. This litigation currently
consists of three actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the
motion, the parties have notified the Panel of one potential tag-along action pending in the Northern
District of California.1
All parties support centralization under Section 1407, but disagree on an appropriate choice
for transferee district. Defendant Collecto, Inc., supports centralization in the Northern District of
California, as do plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Michigan action. Plaintiff in the District of
Massachusetts proposes that district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual
questions relating to allegations that Collecto placed debt collection calls to plaintiffs’ cellular
telephones using an automated system, without the plaintiffs’ consent. Although there are relatively
few parties and actions at present, efficiencies can be gained from having these actions proceed in a
single district. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary. The record indicates that there is likely to be significant third party discovery which
will benefit from common pretrial proceedings. Centralization also is consistent with our prior
decisions involving similar TCPA claims.2

*

Judges Paul J. Barbadoro and Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

This and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1
and 7.2.
2

See, e.g., In re Convergent Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 2013 WL 5596117, at *2 (J.P.M.L.
Oct. 8, 2013); In re Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 899 F. Supp. 2d
1382 (J.P.M.L. 2012); In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 846
F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2011); In re Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig.,
818 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2011).

-2We conclude that the District of Massachusetts is an appropriate transferee forum for this
litigation. The defendant has its headquarters in Norwell, Massachusetts, and much of the common
evidence is likely to be located there. This district also provides a geographically convenient forum
for this nationwide litigation. Judge Richard G. Stearns is an experienced transferee judge who we
are confident will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the District of Massachusetts are transferred to the District of
Massachusetts and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Richard G. Stearns for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district and listed on
Schedule A.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Marjorie O. Rendell
Sarah S. Vance

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle

IN RE: COLLECTO, INC., TELEPHONE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
John Lofton v. Collecto, Inc., C.A. No. 4:13-03293
District of Massachusetts
Robert Pegg v. Collecto, Inc., C.A. No. 1:13-11944
Eastern District of Michigan
Ralph Davenport, et al. v. Collecto, Inc., C.A. No. 4:13-13156

MDL No. 2513