EASTERLING et al v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC.

Filing 36

Copy of Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407 the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the ED-PA and assigned to the Honorable Anita B. Brody for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in that district. (See Paper # 1 in 12-md-2323). (tjd)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION

MDLNo.2323

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:- Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1407, common defendant National Football
League (NFL) moves to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This
litigation currently consists of four actions, one in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and three in
the Central District of California, as listed on Schedule A. The Panel has been notified of sixteen
additional potentially-related actions.!
Defendant NFL Properties LLC and plaintiffs in the four constituent actions support the
motion, as do plaintiffs in nine potentially-related actions. Plaintiffs in four potentially-related actions
pending in the Northern District of Georgia alternatively suggest centralization in that district, and
plaintiffs in a potentially-related action pending in the Southern District of Florida alternatively
suggest centralization in that district. Plaintiffs in one District of New Jersey potentially-related
action suggest centralization in that district. The Riddell defendants2 oppose the motion or,
alternatively, suggest separation and remand ofthe claims against them or a delay oftransfer oftheir
claims until the Central District of California rules upon certain pending motions.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these four actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. The subject actions share factual issues arising from allegations
against the NFL stemming from injuries sustained while playing professional football, including
damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions while playing professional
football in the NFL. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent

Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. and Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the
disposition ofthis matter.
These actions and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Rules
1. 1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.
Defendants Riddel~ Inc.; Riddell Sports Group, Inc.; All American Sports Corp.;
2
Easton-Bell Sports, Inc.; EB Sports Corp.; Easton-Bell Sports, LLC; and RBG Holdings Corp.

-2­

inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources ofthe parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
In opposing centralization, the Riddell defendants argue, inter alia, that (I) motions to dismiss
and to sever the claims against them are pending in the Central District ofCalifornia, and (2) transfer
ofclaims against them to the Eastern District ofPennsylvania would be inconvenient. Since the filing
of the present Section 1407 motion, two additional actions have been filed that include the Riddell
defendants, one action pending in pending in the Central District ofCalifornia and one action pending
in the Eastern District ofPennsylvania. Therefore, while the Riddell defendants argue that litigating
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would inconvenience them, they are already involved in
litigation in that district and any similar motions to dismiss or sever would invite the risk of
inconsistent rulings. It is unclear at this juncture how closely related the claims against the Riddell
defendants are to the claims against the NFL. It may be that the claims against the Riddell defendants
are easily separable, but we are persuaded that the transferee judge is in the best position to determine
whether those claims are sufficiently related to the NFL claims to remain in centralized proceedings.
If the transferee judge determines after close scrutiny that remand of any claims is appropriate,
procedures are available whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of delay. See Rules
10.1-10.3, R.PJ.P.M.L.
We conclude that the Eastern District ofPennsylvania is an appropriate transferee district for
pretrial proceedings in this litigation. Six actions are now pending in that district before Judge Anita
B. Brody, who has the experience to guide this litigation on a prudent course. Furthermore, the
majority of the parties support centralization in that district.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Anita B.
Brody for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district and
listed on Schedule A.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Paul 1. Barbadoro

Barbara S. Jones
Charles R. Breyer

IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2323

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California
Vernon Maxwell, et al. v. National Football League, C.A. No.2: 11-08394
Dave Pear, et al. v. National Football League, et al., C.A. No.2: 11-08395
Larry Barnes, et al. v. National Football League, et al., c.A. No.2: 11-08396
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Charles Ray Easterling, et al. v. National Football League, Inc., C.A. No. 2:11-05209