Nardine Martinez et al v. The United States of America

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 3041) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 8/2/2022. Associated Cases: MDL No. 3041, CAC/5:21-cv-01940, DC/1:22-cv-00029, DC/1:22-cv-00071, DC/1:22-cv-00703, INS/1:21-cv-01385 (CMD)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM LITIGATION

MDL No. 3041

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: ∗ Plaintiffs in the five actions listed on Schedule A move under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of the District of Columbia. The actions allege
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service unlawfully has disqualified
various stores from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”), a program that
provides nutrition benefits to low-income individuals and families that are used at stores to
purchase food. Defendant United States opposes centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed, 1 we conclude that centralization will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The principal common questions in this litigation are legal rather than factual – specifically,
(1) whether the deciding officials are “Officers of the United States” under the Appointments
Clause of the Constitution; and (2) whether the disqualification system comports with due process.
Common legal questions are insufficient to satisfy Section 1407’s requirement of common factual
questions. See, e.g., In re ABA Law School Accreditation Litig., 325 F. Supp. 3d 1377, 1378
(J.P.M.L. 2018) (denying centralization of three actions bringing nearly identical legal challenges
to certain ABA standards governing law school accreditation); In re SFPP, LP., R.R. Prop. Rights
Litig., 121 F. Supp. 3d 1360, 1361 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (denying centralization of three actions where
the “key issue” in the litigation was “legal in nature” – there, the scope of a railroad’s property
rights under Congressional land grants). Although movant seeks efficiencies through centralized
treatment of these legal questions, “[m]erely to avoid two federal courts having to decide the same
issue is, by itself, usually not sufficient to justify Section 1407 centralization.” In re Medi-Cal
Reimbursement Rate Reduction Litig., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2009).
In contrast to these overarching legal questions, the factual questions presented in these
actions are largely store-specific – that is, whether there was sufficient evidence to support the
disqualification of each of the various stores from participating in SNAP. There are no efficiencies
to be gained from centralization of discovery on these store-specific issues.
∗
1

Judge Roger T. Benitez did not participate in the decision of this matter.

The Panel previously determined that the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented
in the briefing and dispensed with oral argument in this matter under Panel Rule 11.1(c). See
Order Dispensing with Oral Argument, MDL No. 3041, Doc. No. 24 (J.P.M.L. July 8, 2022).

-2-

The circumstances of this litigation indicate that, if any overlapping discovery does arise,
voluntary coordination will provide a practicable alternative to centralization. There are only five
pending actions in this litigation and three involved districts. Plaintiffs in all actions are
represented by the same counsel, and they bring their actions against the same defendant – the
United States – which is well-situated to facilitate any necessary coordination across the actions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of the actions listed on
Schedule A is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

_________________________________________
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton
David C. Norton
Madeline Cox Arleo

Matthew F. Kennelly
Dale A. Kimball

IN RE: SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM LITIGATION

MDL No. 3041

SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, C.A. No. 5:21−01940
District of District of Columbia
ABDULLAH, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22−00029
KAHN, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22−00071
ZATARAH, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22−00703
Southern District of Indiana
SAID v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, C.A. No. 1:21−01385