IN RE: Eligo Energy Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: ELIGO ENERGY LITIGATION MDL No. 3169
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:* Defendants in the four actions listed on Schedule A move under 28
U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in those
actions oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs are Eligo customers who allege that their contracts with Eligo
cabined Eligo’s discretion to set its variable rates for electricity and natural gas. According to
plaintiffs, Eligo instead set its variable rates based on an assessment of how high a rate it could
charge before experiencing too much customer attrition. All plaintiffs assert claims for breach of
contract and seek compensatory and punitive damages. The actions likely will share some factual
questions, as the complaints each include allegations that Eligo had a uniform practice for setting
variable utility rates based on how much money it thought it could extract from customers rather
than the formula set by its contracts with its customers.
In our view, centralization is not warranted for this small group of actions. “These are, at
bottom, fairly straight-forward contract and misrepresentation actions.” In re Recore Antitrust
Litig., 730 F. Supp. 3d 1355, 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2024). The actions now before us appear to involve
distinct contracts and likely will necessitate significant case-specific discovery. Plaintiffs in each
action assert their claims against a different state-specific Eligo entity. In the Southern District of
New York Brous action listed on Schedule A, Eligo asserted that each of its state-specific
subsidiaries uses a different contract tailored to the state where it operates. Eligo also argued that
plaintiffs in each state would need different proof to substantiate their claims against Eligo. So,
while plaintiffs similarly aver in each action that Eligo overcharged customers on variable rate
plans, each action may largely turn on unique factual questions.
Plaintiffs have amended, or have sought to amend, their complaints so that the actions will
propose non-overlapping state or multi-state classes. This removes concern about courts reaching
conflicting class certification decisions. The alleged factual distinctions among Eligo’s contracts
* 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 participated in this decision.
Case MDL No. 3169 Document 20 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 4

-2-
in each state suggest there will be little duplicative discovery. Eligo objects to the possibility that
its witnesses deposed in Brous may get re-deposed absent centralization, but that seems
unavoidable because discovery in Brous was limited to Eligo’s New York operations while the
other actions will focus on Eligo’s operations in different states.
Eligo’s argument that informal coordination will not suffice here is not well taken. As we
routinely state, “centralization under Section 1407 ‘should be the last solution after considered
review of all other options.’” Id. at *2 (quoting In re Gerber Probiotic Prods. Mktg. & Sales
Pracs. Litig., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2012)). This litigation involves only two law
firms litigating in four district courts in the Northeast. “The number of actions suggests that
cooperation and informal coordination by the involved courts and counsel should be feasible.” In
re Prevagen Prods. Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig., 283 F. Supp. 3d 1379, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2017).
Although plaintiffs have not agreed to specific discovery limits to all actions based on the scope
of discovery in Brous, plaintiffs’ position does not create an impasse on informal coordination.
Each action appears to raise factual questions unique to an Eligo subsidiary and that subsidiary’s
state-specific contract. Those distinctions may justify applying only some, or none, of the
Southern District of New York court’s rulings from Brous to the actions pending in the Western
District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Ohio, and the District of Maryland. Regardless,
we encourage the parties to explore all available avenues of informal coordination.
Further weighing against centralization is that it may unnecessarily delay the proceedings
in Brous, which is procedurally advanced. See In re Sirius XM Radio, Inc. Tel. Consumer Prot.
Act (TCPA) Litig., 118 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1376–77 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (denying centralization when
one “action is significantly advanced, with fact and expert discovery completed and class
certification briefing poised to commence” while the “other actions remain at relatively initial
stages of litigation” because centralization may delay proceedings in the advanced action). The
court in Brous has already resolved over 20 disputes related to discovery of Eligo’s New York
operations, expert discovery is ongoing, and discovery closes in January 2026. In contrast,
discovery has not advanced in the other three actions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is
denied.
Case MDL No. 3169 Document 20 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 4

-3-
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. 3169 Document 20 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 4

IN RE: ELIGO ENERGY LITIGATION MDL No. 3169
SCHEDULE A
District of Maryland
WHITESIDE v. ELIGO ENERGY, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−02532
Southern District of New York
BROUS, ET AL. v. ELIGO ENERGY, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:24−01260
Southern District of Ohio
ORZOLEK v. ELIGO ENERGY, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00078
Western District of Pennsylvania
BODKIN, ET AL. v. ELIGO ENERGY, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00094
Case MDL No. 3169 Document 20 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 4