IN RE: Bailey Financing Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: BAILEY FINANCING LITIGATION MDL No. 2609
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: Bighorn Capital, Inc. (Bighorn) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The litigation consists of actions pending
in that district, the District of Nevada, and the Southern District of Texas, as listed on Schedule A.1
Responding parties F. Kenneth Bailey, Jr., F. Kenneth Bailey, Jr., PC, Kenneth Camp Bailey,
William Harrison Junell, and Bailey Peavy Bailey PLLC (collectively the Bailey Respondents)
oppose centralization. If the Panel orders centralization over their objections, then the Bailey
Respondents argue for selection of the Southern District of Texas as the transferee district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny Bighorn’s motion.
Although the actions arguably share certain factual issues concerning two Financing Commitments
under which Bighorn agreed to arrange loans for the Bailey Respondents, those issues do not appear
to be particularly complex. Rather, the litigation involves a relatively straightforward business2
dispute among only a few parties. See In re: Mansfield Oil Co. of Gainesville, Inc., Contract Litig.,
672 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2010). The substantially differing procedural postures of the
actions also weigh against centralization. See, e.g., In re: Lloyds Bank PLC Int'l Mortgage Serv.
Loan Litig., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1353 (J.P.M.L.2014). In the earlier filed Southern District of
Texas action, which was commenced in Texas state court in November 2013, a significant amount
of discovery already has taken place. Indeed, under a September 17, 2014, scheduling order, the fact
discovery cutoff of January 30, 2015, already has passed. In contrast, the actions in the Northern
District of Illinois and the District of Nevada were filed in November and December 2014,
respectively.
The two actions pending in the Southern District of Texas have been consolidated.1
Moreover, the issues in the District of Nevada action appear to be largely unique. They2
concern the alleged breach of an agreement to provide funding for a real estate transaction in
Houston, Texas. That transaction is not directly at issue in either the consolidated Southern District
of Texas actions or the Northern District of Illinois action.
Case MDL No. 2609 Document 35 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 3

-2-
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer
Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle
R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry
Case MDL No. 2609 Document 35 Filed 04/03/15 Page 2 of 3

IN RE: BAILEY FINANCING LITIGATION MDL No. 2609
SCHEDULE A
Northern District of Illinois
BIGHORN CAPITAL, INC. v. PSB PARTNERS, LLC,
C.A. No. 1:14-09045
District of Nevada
BLUE ACQUISITION MEMBER, LLC v. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY, PLLC,
C.A. No. 2:14-02013
Southern District of Texas
F. KENNETH BAILEY, JR. PC, ET AL. v. ENTLER, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:13-03521
BIGHORN CAPITAL, INC. v. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY, PLLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:14-03070
Case MDL No. 2609 Document 35 Filed 04/03/15 Page 3 of 3