IN RE: Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC.,
FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
(FDCPA) LITIGATION MDL No. 2601
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: Defendant Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. (Convergent) moves under 28*
U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of Texas.
This litigation currently consists of six actions—two in the Southern District of Texas and one each
in the Middle District of Florida, the Northern District of Illinois, the Western District of
Pennsylvania, and the District of South Carolina—as listed on Schedule A. Plaintiffs in each of1
these actions allege (a) that Convergent sent them a letter seeking to settle a years-old consumer debt
without disclosing that the applicable statute of limitations barred litigation to collect the debt and
(b) that this failure to disclose violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692, et seq. Plaintiffs in five of the actions support centralization of this litigation in the Northern
District of Illinois, where they argue related litigation against other debt collection companies and
debt purchasers, in particular LVNV Funding, LLC, has been ongoing since at least 2011.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation. These actions share some factual questions arising from plaintiffs’ allegations that
Convergent sent each of them a dunning letter seeking to collect a consumer debt without revealing
that the applicable statute of limitations with respect to the debt had expired. These common
questions, though, are not sufficiently complex or numerous to warrant the creation of an MDL.
There is no dispute regarding the contents of these letters, only whether the failure to state that
litigation to collect the debts was time-barred renders them misleading under the FDCPA.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.*
The Panel has been notified of seven related actions pending in the Central and Northern1
Districts of California, the Northern District of Georgia, the Central District of Illinois, the Western
District of Kentucky, and the Southern District of Texas.
Case MDL No. 2601 Document 44 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 3

-2-
Furthermore, the actions on the motion involve non-overlapping putative state classes of
consumers and differ in potentially significant ways. For instance, most of the putative classes are2
directed towards failure to disclose the time-barred status of the alleged debt. Plaintiff in the actions
pending in the Southern District of Texas, however, allege that Convergent stated in its dunning
letters that it would not take legal action with respect to the alleged debt, but instead threatened to
report the non-payment of the alleged debt to credit reporting agencies. Thus, there is no substantial
risk of conflicting pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification.
We also note that the various actions against other debt collection companies and debt
purchasers pending in several districts in the Seventh Circuit—which plaintiffs point to in support
of centralization in the Northern District of Illinois—have been proceeding without centralization
(or, indeed, any other formal means of consolidation or coordination) for several years and are now
nearing the conclusion of pretrial proceedings. Thus, to the extent there is any possibility of
duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial rulings, voluntary cooperation and coordination among
the parties and the involved courts seems a feasible alternative to centralization. See, e.g., In re Eli
Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also
Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).
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
Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor
Catherine D. Perry
The only arguable overlap—between the putative classes of Texas consumers asserted in2
the two actions pending in the Southern District of Texas—does not impact our analysis. Both
actions are brought by the same plaintiff.
Case MDL No. 2601 Document 44 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 3

IN RE: CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC.,
FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
(FDCPA) LITIGATION MDL No. 2601
SCHEDULE A
Middle District of Florida
RIFFLE v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:14-01181
Northern District of Illinois
MCMAHON v. GALAXY ASSET PURCHASING, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-05257
Western District of Pennsylvania
WHALEN v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01519
District of South Carolina
ALDRICH v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., C.A. No. 7:14-03456
Southern District of Texas
KEETON v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00131
KEETON v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00132
Case MDL No. 2601 Document 44 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 3