IN RE: Dispute Regarding Coal Reserves, Land and Coal Mining Equipment at Mingo Co., West Virginia

| Case MDL No.-408 Document2 Filed 05/20/15 Page	1 of 2 |dora dtline. \ N
ATT ay Std| em LTTE
- Sh. [35, 1 oo
DOCKET NO. 408 Copied. SA .
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION,	i’ So. VS
IN RE DISPUTE REGARDING COAL RESERVES, LAND AND COAL MINING
EQUIPMENT AT MINGO COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
. ORDER DENYING TRANSFER : SE
Presently before the Panel in this litigation are three So
actions, two pending in the Southern District of New York
and one in the Southern District of West Virginia.
This matter is before the Panel on a motion, pursuant oo
to 28 U.S.C. §1407, to transfer the West Virginia action to
the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consoli- . }
dated pretrial proceedings	with the actions pending there. Co
On the basis of the papers filed in this litigation,+/ a LL Lo
we find that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the TE
convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just LoL
and efficient conduct of the litigation. Given the minimal Co
number of actions before us, movants have failed to persuade i :us that any common questions of fact involved in these actions
are sufficiently complex, and that the accompanying discovery
will be so time-consuming, as to justify Section 1407 transfer. i R
See In re Scotch Whiskey Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp. )
543, 544 (J.P.M.L. 1969). We note that suitable alternatives Po oe
to transfer under Section 1407 exist in order to minimize [EE
the possibility of duplicative discovery and/or conflicting
pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Penitentiary Postal
Procedure Litigation, 465 F. Supp. 1293, 1294-95 (J.P.M.L. :
1979); In re Commercial Lighting Products, Inc. Contract
Litigation, 415 F. Supp. 392, 393 (J.P.M.L. 1976). See also
Manual for Complex Litigation, Parts I and II, §§3.11 (rev. ooed. 1977). :
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1407 pertaining to the actions listed
on the following Schedule A be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
FOR THE PANEL: :
7
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman
1/ All parties waived oral argument and, therefore, this :
matter was submitted for decision on the basis of the papers
filed. See Rule 14, R.P.J.P.it.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 572 (1978).

. oe Case MDL No. 408 Document 2 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 2
@ - SCHEDULE A :
DOCKET NO. 408 -- In re Dispute Regarding Coal Reserves, Land
and Coal Mining Equipment at Mingo County,
West Virginia :
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
The Cumberland Group, et al. v. Civil Action
Cotiga Development Co., et al. No. 79 Civ 6717
The Cumberland Group, et al. v. Civil Action
Cotiga Development Co., et al. No. 79 Civ 6718
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ERT Coal Corp., et al. wv. Civil Action
The Cumberland Group, et al. No. 79-2405