Overtime Law Blog

Home » Multidistrict Litigation » U.S.Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.: Declines to Consolidate Actions Pending In 2 Different Districts

U.S.Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.: Declines to Consolidate Actions Pending In 2 Different Districts

Submit Your Case - Copy (2)

TwitterGoogle+LinkedInRSSJustia

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 295 other subscribers

RSS DOL News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Andrew Frisch

In re: U.S.A. Exterminators, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litigation

Considering Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Consolidate 2 actions, one pending in the E.D.N.Y. and the other pending in the S.D.N.Y., the Court denied the Motion.  The Multidistrict Panel reasoned “Section 1407 centralization would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Inasmuch as this litigation involves only two actions, which are pending in adjacent districts, the proponents of centralization have failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings.”

%d bloggers like this: