Glenn Wurdemann v. First National Collection Bureau Inc et al

Filing 34

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (4 in CAC/5:14-cv-02075, 4 in CAN/3:14-cv-04303, 4 in FLM/6:14-cv-01181, 4 in GAN/1:14-cv-03901, 4 in ILC/4:12-cv-04057, 4 in ILN/1:11-cv-08972, 4 in ILN/1:12-cv-01410, 4 in ILN/1:13-cv-05308, 4 in INN/2:12-cv-00523 , 6 in MDL No. 2610, 5 in TXS/1:14-cv-00130, 5 in TXS/1:14-cv-00131, 5 in TXS/1:14-cv-00132), (23 in CAC/5:14-cv-02075, 19 in CAN/3:14-cv-04303, 23 in FLM/6:14-cv-01181, 18 in GAN/1:14-cv-03 901, 19 in ILC/4:12-cv-04057, 22 in ILN/1:11-cv-08972, 22 in ILN/1:12-cv-01410, 19 in ILN/1:13-cv-05308, 21 in INN/2:12-cv-00523, 59 in MDL No. 2610, 22 in TXS/1:14-cv-00130, 21 in TXS/1:14- cv-00131, 21 in TXS/1:14-cv-00132), ( 1 in MDL No. 2610) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIG ATION, on 4/2/2015. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2610, CAC/5:14-cv-02075, CAN/3:14-cv-04303, FLM/6:14-cv-01181, GAN/1:14-cv-03901, ILC/4:12-cv-04057, ILN/1:11-cv-08972, ILN/1:12-cv-01410, ILN/1:13-cv-05308, INN/2:12-cv-00523, TXS/1:14-cv-00130, TXS/1:14-cv-00131, TXS/1:14-cv-00132 (DP)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: LVNV FUNDING, LLC, FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) LITIGATION MDL No. 2610 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER Before the Panel: Plaintiff in an action pending in the Northern District of Illinois (Rawson) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. This litigation currently consists of twelve actions pending in eight districts, as listed on Schedule A.1 Plaintiffs in each of these actions allege that they received a letter seeking to settle a years-old consumer debt that failed to disclose that the applicable statute of limitations barred litigation to collect the debt. Plaintiffs claim that this failure to disclose violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. Although these actions involve different defendants, movant argues that every action either names LVNV Funding, LLC (LVNV) as a defendant or involves the attempted collection of a debt owned by LVNV. While all responding defendants oppose centralization, several propose different transferee districts in the alternative. Defendants Capital Management Services, LP, CMS General Partner LLC, and CMS Group, Inc., alternatively suggest the Western District of New York as the transferee district. Defendant Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. (Convergent) alternatively suggests the Western District of Texas as the transferee district. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share some factual questions arising from allegations that one or more of the defendants sent plaintiffs a dunning letter seeking to collect a consumer debt without revealing that the applicable statute of limitations had expired. But, as in In re Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Litigation, MDL No. 2601, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2015 WL 506393 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 5, 2015) (involving similar claims and several of the same actions listed on the present motion), these common questions are not sufficiently complex or numerous to warrant the creation of an MDL. There is no dispute regarding the content of these letters, only whether the failure to state that litigation to collect the debts was time-barred renders them misleading under the FDCPA. And, unlike the motion to centralize the Convergent litigation, the actions on the present motion involve different defendants and letters from at least six different debt collection agencies. 1 There were thirteen actions initially listed on the motion to centralize, but an action pending in the District of South Carolina has since been dismissed. -2Furthermore, there is limited overlap among the putative (and, in one action, certified) classes asserted in these actions. Thus, there exists only a limited risk of conflicting pretrial rulings with respect to class certification. With the exception of a non-common nationwide putative class asserted in the Rawson action, all of the asserted classes are state classes. The overlap between the classes asserted in the actions pending in the Southern District of Texas can be disregarded because the same plaintiff brought each of those actions. While there is some overlap among the classes asserted in several of the actions pending in the Northern District of Illinois and other districts located in the Seventh Circuit, these actions have been proceeding without centralization (or, indeed, any other formal means of consolidation or coordination) for several years and are now nearing the conclusion of pretrial proceedings. This raises perhaps the most significant obstacle to centralization of these actions. The five actions pending in the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of Illinois, and the Northern District of Indiana are considerably more advanced procedurally than the other actions on the motion. Fact and expert discovery has or will soon close in each of these actions. A class already has been certified in Rawson, which has been pending since 2011. And, a settlement has been announced in the action pending in the Central District of Illinois. Pretrial proceedings in these actions thus are drawing to a close. In contrast, the remaining seven actions on the motion (which involve three different debt collector defendants) only recently have been filed. Centralization of such procedurally disparate actions does not serve the purposes of Section 1407. See In re Reglan/Metoclopramide Prods. Liab. Litig., 622 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2009). 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 IN RE: LVNV FUNDING, LLC, FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) LITIGATION MDL No. 2610 SCHEDULE A Central District of California WURDEMANN v. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:14-02075 Northern District of California PATHMAN v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-04303 Middle District of Florida RIFFLE v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:14-01181 Northern District of Georgia LOPEZ v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-03901 Central District of Illinois DELGADO v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:12-04057 Northern District of Illinois RAWSON v. SOURCE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:11-08972 MCMAHON v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:12-01410 DOLEMBA v. NORTHLAND GROUP INC., C.A. No. 1:13-05308 Northern District of Indiana ANGUIANO, ET AL. v. LVNV FUNDING LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:12-00523 Southern District of Texas KEETON v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00130 KEETON v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00131 KEETON v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00132

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?