1:81-F-00477•IN RE: Western Electric Company, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation
IN RE: Western Electric Company, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation
1:81-F-00477Jpml19.05.2015
Gesamter Gesetzestext
i—mmeeeee ae at SLL ; Shere - i
Case MDL No. 477 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2 ]: |
EEL FA - I
DOCKET NO. 477 PRRINEIRET EAT 7 EER
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION . { AT [Ep r REE Lite .
vio (9g
IN RE WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYMENT. .PRAGTICES | / 5 oO : LITIGATION HRS A s/t -
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER¥* i
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407, brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Po EE
Commission (EEOC), plaintiff in the two actions listed on Po eT .
the attached Schedule A, for transfer of the action pending i oe
in the District of Arizona to the Northern District of Illinois i. a
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with : _
the action pending there. |
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
we find that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the : : ]
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Given the 3 AEminimal number of actions before us, movant has failed to AE
persuade us that any common questions of fact involved in i Sr
these actions are sufficiently complex, and that the accompany- i :
ing discovery will be so time-consuming, as to justify Section :
1407 transfer. See In re Scotch Whiskey Antitrust Litigation, | :
299 F. Supp. 543), 544 (J.P.M.L. 1969). We also note that
the Illinois action has been pending for over five years :
and the Arizona action has been pending for over three years, Lo i
and yet the EEOC has previously made no effort to obtain Co
centralized pretrial treatment of the two actions. Finally, Po
we point out that suitable alternatives to transfer exist i
in order to minimize the possibility of duplicative discovery ;
and/or conflicting pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli :
Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, v
446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978). See also Manual
for Complex Litigation, Parts I and II, §§3.11 (rev. ed. }
1977). Lo 3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer E pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 be, and the same hereby is,
DENIED.
FOR THE PANEL: }
R W. Harper | oo : | .Acting Chairman | : :
*Judge Andrew A. Caffrey took no part in the decision of | this matter. :Case MDL No. 477 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2 ~ ~ SCHEDULE A MDL~-477 -- In reWestern Electric Co., Inc. Employment Practices -Litigation District of Arizona Equzl Employment Opportunity Commission V. Western ElectricCo., et al., C.A. No. Civ-76-525-Phx.-W - TT Northern District ofIllinois : Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Western Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 78C3951 TTT
Was bedeutet dieser Text für Ihre Situation?
Kostenlose und unverbindliche Beratung
Schildern Sie uns Ihre Situation. Unser Team meldet sich per E-Mail bei Ihnen für Ihre Beratung.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.