United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
April 15, 2002
IN RE LAWRENCE MOORE/INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LITIGATION, LAWRENCE MOORE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 6, ET AL., LAWRENCE MOORE V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 8.
Before William Terrell Hodges, Chairman, John F. Keenan, Morey L. Sear,
Bruce M. Selya, Julia Smith Gibbons, D. Lowell Jensen And J. Frederick
Motz, Judges OF The Panel
The opinion of the court was delivered by: William Terrell Hodges, Chairman, United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
This litigation consists of two actions*fn1 pending, respectively, in
the Northern District of California and Northern District of Ohio.
Plaintiff Lawrence Moore moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407,
for an order centralizing this litigation in a single federal court. All
responding defendants oppose the motion.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel
finds that given the minimal number of actions involved in this docket,
Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Movant has failed to persuade us that any common questions of
fact in this docket are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify
Section 1407 transfer. We point out that alternatives to transfer exist
that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative
discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings, or both. See, e.g., In re Eli
Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation,
446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978). See also Manual/or Complex
Litigation, Third, § 31.14 (1995).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these two actions is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Michigan defendants' request for fees and
costs is denied.