IN RE: Class Action Settlement Administration Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
ADMINISTRATION LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3162
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Baker action move
under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or,
alternatively, the Southern District of New York. This litigation consists of five actions pending
in four districts, as listed on Schedule A. In addition, the parties have informed the Panel of five
related actions pending in four districts.1
All responding plaintiffs support centralization but ask the Panel to separate and remand
under Section 1407(a) the “digital payment kickback” claims in the Baker action. These plaintiffs
request centralization in the Northern District of California. 	Six defendants2 (including all
common defendants) support centralization of all claims, including the digital payment kickback
claims, in the Southern District of New York. Defendant Kroll Settlement Administration LLC,
which is named only in the Rieger action, takes no position on centralization but argues against
selection of the Southern District of Florida—a district no party suggested—as the transferee
district for this litigation.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed
on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of the
District of Columbia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. 	These actions share factual questions arising from an
alleged scheme by three of the largest settlement claims administrators (Angeion, Epiq, and JND)
to divert settlement deposits to two banks (Huntington and Western Alliance) in return for
kickbacks in the form of interest and investments earned on the settlement deposits that otherwise
* Judge Madeline Cox Arleo did not participate in the decision of this matter. Additionally, one
or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have
renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this decision.
1 These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1,
and 7.2.
2 These defendants are: Angeion Group LLC; Digital Settlement Technologies LLC; Epiq
Systems, Inc.; JND Legal Administration; Huntington National Bank; and Western Alliance Bank.
Case MDL No. 3162 Document 53 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
would have been distributed to plaintiffs and class members or used to pay down the costs of class
administration services. 	Plaintiffs in all five actions seek to represent substantially similar
nationwide classes and assert similar claims under federal antitrust law, the Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and common law. 	Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
Although the non-moving plaintiffs support centralization, they ask us to separate and
remand the digital payment kickback claims asserted in Baker. These claims involve an alleged
scheme in which three providers of digital payment cards, gift cards, and virtual payment cards
(Tremendous LLC, Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc., and Digital Settlement Technologies LLC
d/b/a Digital Disbursements Payments) induced the claims administrators to use their respective
digital payment platforms by sharing a portion of the “breakage” (i.e., revenue gained through
unredeemed gift cards and unclaimed payment cards) with them. Breaking this litigation apart is
not warranted. 	“Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of common
factual issues or parties as a prerequisite to transfer, and the presence of additional facts or differing
legal theories is not significant where, as here, the actions still arise from a common factual core.”
In re FTX Cryptocurrency Exch. Collapse Litig., 677 F. Supp. 3d 1379, 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2023).
The digital payment kickback allegations involve the same claims administrator defendants and
many of the same underlying settlements as the bank kickback allegations. Separating these claims
would result in those defendants litigating, and many of the same witnesses testifying, in multiple
districts. Cf. In re Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) Prods. Liab. Litig.,
717 F. Supp. 3d 1370, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2024) (“Separation and remand in effect would require
plaintiffs in those actions to prosecute two actions for their alleged injury in two separate courts.”).
In contrast, centralization of these actions in their entirety will streamline proceedings and avoid
the possibility of duplicative discovery and pretrial scheduling conflicts.
Furthermore, separation and remand may not be practicable. 	Section 1407(a) does not
“authorize the Panel to transfer one issue raised by a claim . . . while remanding another issue
raised by the same claim.” In re Air Crash Disaster at Duarte, Cal. on June 6, 1971, 346 F. Supp.
529, 530 (J.P.M.L. 1972). Arguably, plaintiffs in Baker do not assert separate “claims” regarding
the digital payment kickback scheme. None of plaintiffs’ claims is directed solely to the “fintech”
defendants or to the digital payment kickback allegations. 	Moreover, separation and remand
would be required not just for Baker, but also for the potential tag-along actions, which also assert
digital payment kickback claims, further complicating the litigation.
The District of the District of Columbia is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. This district has very few pending MDLs, has the capacity and resources to successfully
guide this litigation, and offers a convenient forum for parties and witnesses. More importantly,
the Honorable John D. Bates, who sits in this district, has extensive experience with both class
actions and multidistrict litigation. Though a related action is not currently pending in the District
of the District of Columbia, that is not a bar to centralization there. See In re Bard IVC Filters
Prods. Liab. Litig., 122 F. Supp. 3d 1375, 1376–77 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (centralizing fifteen actions in
the District of Arizona though no constituent action was pending in that district). We are confident
that Judge Bates will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course.
Case MDL No. 3162 Document 53 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
District of the District of Columbia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
John D. Bates for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton 	Matthew F. Kennelly
David C. Norton 	Roger T. Benitez
Dale A. Kimball
Case MDL No. 3162 Document 53 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 4

IN RE: CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
ADMINISTRATION LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3162
SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
WHALEN, ET AL. v. EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−04522
RIEGER v. EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−04793
Southern District of Florida
TEJON v. EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−22453
Southern District of New York
WHALEN v. EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−04499
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
BAKER v. ANGEION GROUP LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−02079
Case MDL No. 3162 Document 53 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 4