Charlotte School of Law, LLC et al v. American Bar Association et al

Filing 24

MDL ORDER denying transfer as to MDL No. 2855 In Re: ABA Law School Accreditation Litigation. Signed by Sarah S. Vance, Chair, Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (tmg)

Case NCW/3:18-cv-00256 Document 14 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ABA LAW SCHOOL
ACCREDITATION LITIGATION

MDL No. 2855

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* ABA defendants1 in the three actions listed on Schedule A move under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize litigation brought by certain for-profit law schools challenging the
ABA’s accreditation determinations. Defendants seek centralization in Western District of North
Carolina or, alternatively, the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff law schools,2 owned by parent
company plaintiff InfiLaw Corp., oppose centralization and, alternatively, suggest selection of the
Middle District of Florida as the transferee forum.
After considering all arguments of counsel, we conclude that Section 1407 centralization of
this litigation is not necessary. The actions involve nearly identical legal challenges of certain ABA
Standards governing law school accreditation that were invoked in the ABA’s adverse accreditation
decisions concerning three InfiLaw-owned for-profit law schools. In addition, the actions share
factual questions arising from plaintiffs' allegations that Department of Education and ABA officials
were biased against for-profit law schools and that DOE officials pressured or coerced ABA officials
to take adverse actions against the law schools’ accreditation status. But, in litigation such as this,
where only a few actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to
demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. See In re: Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. (No. II), 753
F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010). Moving defendants have failed to do so here.
There are only three actions in this litigation, and the parties are represented by common
counsel. No potential tag-along actions have been filed, and none are likely because InfiLaw owns
only these three schools. Resolution of the cases likely will hinge on legal questions (such as
whether the ABA can be considered a state actor and whether its accreditation standards are
unenforceably vague), the resolution of which may not require discovery. The question of whether
discovery should be allowed into purported anti-InfiLaw bias by decisionmakers and other officials,
though common to all cases, is not itself a factual dispute. Common legal questions are insufficient

*

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

The American Bar Association, the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and
Admissions to the Bar, and the Accreditation Committee of the Section of Legal Education and
Admissions to the Bar.
2

Florida Coastal School of Law, Charlotte School of Law and Arizona Summit Law School.

Case NCW/3:18-cv-00256 Document 14 Filed 08/01/18 Page 2 of 3

-2to satisfy Section 1407’s requirement of common factual questions. See, e.g., In re: Envtl. Prot.
Agency Pesticide Listing Confidentiality Litig., 434 F. Supp. 1235, 1236 (J.P.M.L.1977) (denying
centralization and noting that “the predominant, and perhaps only, common aspect in these actions
is a legal question of statutory interpretation”). Although plaintiffs seek efficiencies through
centralized treatment of disputed legal questions, “[m]erely to avoid [different] 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);
see also In re: Real Estate Transfer Tax Litig., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1351 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (same).
If needed as this litigation progresses, various mechanisms are available to minimize or
eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery in the absence of an MDL. Notices of deposition
can be filed in all related actions; the parties can stipulate that any discovery relevant to more than
one action can be used in all those actions; and the involved courts may direct the parties to
coordinate other pretrial activities. See, e.g., In re: Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent
Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION, Fourth, § 20.14
(2004).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for Section 1407 centralization of the
actions listed on Schedule A is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Charles R. Breyer
R. David Proctor

Case NCW/3:18-cv-00256 Document 14 Filed 08/01/18 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: ABA LAW SCHOOL
ACCREDITATION LITIGATION

MDL No. 2855

SCHEDULE A

District of Arizona
ARIZONA SUMMIT LAW SCHOOL LLC, ET AL. v. AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18!01580
Middle District of Florida
FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW, INC., ET AL. v. AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18!00621
Western District of North Carolina
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, ET AL. v. AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18!00256