IN RE: Metropolitan Contract Services and Pioneer Contract Services "ERISA" Litigation

Case MDL No. 466 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2
RCL UAE SCY : ES _
MULT LA " EERE
aFE Vi
IEE (Foe Ca
NEE
ERY -7 139i I7/. PLE	DOCKET NO. 466 7 EO
PATRIA Thom ny Ce os	IRIEL Ta LE AA [a --
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION & PHC A NEL co
IN RE METROPOLITAN CONTRACT SERVICES AND PIONEER CONTRACT
SERVICES ERISA LITIGATION
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER* Co
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to oo oe
28 U.S.C. §1407, brought by most of the defendants in the Lo
two actions listed on the attached Schedule A, for transfer Coof the action pending in the Northern District of Alabama - ’
to the Southern District of Texas for coordinated or consoli- :
dated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
we find that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the PE
convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the co Co
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Given the PE .
minimal number of actions before us, movants have failed } Co }
to persuade us that any common questions of fact involved :
in these two actions are sufficiently complex, and that
the accompanying discovery will be so time-consuming, as :
to justify Section 1407 transfer. See In re Scotch Whiskey :
Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp. 543, 544 (J.P.M.L. 1969).
We note that suitable alternatives to transfer exist in nr
order to minimize the possibility of duplicative discovery .
and/or conflicting pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Peni-
tentiary Postal Procedure Litigation, 465 F. Supp. 1293, i
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, §83.11 (rev. ed. 1977). : :
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer B SEE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 be, and the same hereby is, : ’
DENIED.
FOR THE PANEL: }
Andrew A. 2. Gf ooChairman oo :
* Judge Fred Daugherty took no part in the decision of
this matter.

oo Case MDL No. 466 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2
@¢ DOCKET NO. 466
SCHEDULE A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
Billy R. Adcock, et al. v. Pioneer Contract C.A. No.
Services, Inc., et al. v. Allied Bank of Texas CV80L5274NE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Raymond J. Donovan, etc. v. Kenneth R. C.A. No.
Cunningham, et al. v. Allied Bank of Texas H~-80-87