IN RE: TD Bank, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: TD BANK, N.A., DEBIT CARD
OVERDRAFT FEE LITIGATION MDL No. 2613
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: Defendant TD Bank, N.A. (TD Bank) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407*
to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in either the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or
the District of South Carolina. This litigation currently consists of eight putative nationwide class
actions pending in the District of Connecticut, the Middle District of Florida, the District of New
Jersey, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the District of
South Carolina, as listed on Schedule A.1
All of the responding plaintiffs support centralization, though they disagree as to the
transferee district. Like TD Bank, plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania action support
centralization in either that district or the District of South Carolina. Plaintiffs in the actions pending
in the District of Connecticut and the District of South Carolina support centralization only in the
District of South Carolina. Plaintiffs in the remaining five actions suggest that this litigation should
be centralized in the District of New Jersey.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of these actions in the District of South
Carolina will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to the imposition of
overdraft fees by TD Bank on its customers’ checking accounts in a manner that, according to
plaintiffs, improperly results in maximizing the amount of these fees. All of the actions focus on TD
Bank’s overdraft fee practices following its settlement of similar claims that had been transferred
to an earlier MDL, see In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L.
Judge Marjorie O. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.*
The Panel has been notified of two related actions pending in the Southern District of1
Florida. These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2. Plaintiff in one of these actions, which involves allegations of usury in violation of the
National Bank Act, opposes inclusion of that action in this MDL. Plaintiff’s objections are
premature. The proper approach is for plaintiff to present her arguments by moving to vacate if we
issue an order conditionally transferring her action to the MDL. See Rule 7.1. Or plaintiff may
request that the transferee judge remand her action to the transferor court. See Rule 10.1.
Case MDL No. 2613 Document 51 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 3

-2-
2009), and there is significant overlap among the putative classes. Centralization will eliminate2
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class
certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the District of South Carolina is the most appropriate transferee
district for this litigation. The first-filed King action in this district has been pending for nearly a
year and a half, and discovery has begun there. Although TD Bank is not headquartered in the
District of South Carolina, it maintains sizeable operations in South Carolina, and it is likely that
relevant documents and witnesses will be located there. We are convinced that the District of South
Carolina has the necessary judicial resources and expertise to manage this litigation efficiently, and
centralization in this district provides us the opportunity to assign the litigation to a capable jurist
who has not presided over an MDL yet.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the District of South Carolina are transferred to the District of South Carolina and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
__________________________________________
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Charles R. Breyer Lewis A. Kaplan
Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor
Catherine D. Perry
No party suggests that these actions should be transferred to MDL No. 2036. We previously2
determined that transfer of actions involving banks not already participating in MDL No. 2036 is
inappropriate given the stage of proceedings in that litigation. See In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1373-74 (J.P.M.L. 2011).
Case MDL No. 2613 Document 51 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 3

IN RE: TD BANK, N.A., DEBIT CARD
OVERDRAFT FEE LITIGATION MDL No. 2613
SCHEDULE A
District of Connecticut
AUSTIN v. TD BANK, N.A., C.A. No. 3:15-00088
Middle District of Florida
GOODALL v. TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:15-00023
District of New Jersey
HUREL v. TD BANK, N.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-07621
KLEIN, ET AL. v. TD BANK, N.A., C.A. No. 1:15-00179
UCCIFERRI v. TD BANK, N.A., C.A. No. 1:15-00424
Southern District of New York
KOSHGARIAN v. TD BANK, N.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-10250
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
PADILLA, ET AL. v. TD BANK, N.A., C.A. No. 2:14-01276
District of South Carolina
KING, ET AL. v. TD BANK, N.A., C.A. No. 6:13-02264
Case MDL No. 2613 Document 51 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 3