1:81-F-00477•IN RE: Western Electric Company, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation
IN RE: Western Electric Company, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation
1:81-F-00477Jpml19 mai 2015
Texte intégral
i—mmeeeee ae at SLL ; Shere - i
Case MDL No. 477 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2 ]: |
EEL FA - I
DOCKET NO. 477 PRRINEIRET EAT 7 EER
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION . { AT [Ep r REE Lite .
vio (9g
IN RE WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYMENT. .PRAGTICES | / 5 oO : LITIGATION HRS A s/t -
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER¥* i
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407, brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Po EE
Commission (EEOC), plaintiff in the two actions listed on Po eT .
the attached Schedule A, for transfer of the action pending i oe
in the District of Arizona to the Northern District of Illinois i. a
for coordinated or consolidated 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
convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the : : ]
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Given the 3 AEminimal number of actions before us, movant has failed to AE
persuade us that any common questions of fact involved in i Sr
these actions are sufficiently complex, and that the accompany- i :
ing 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 also note that
the Illinois action has been pending for over five years :
and the Arizona action has been pending for over three years, Lo i
and yet the EEOC has previously made no effort to obtain Co
centralized pretrial treatment of the two actions. Finally, Po
we point out that suitable alternatives to transfer exist i
in order to minimize the possibility of duplicative discovery ;
and/or conflicting pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli :
Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, v
446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978). See also Manual
for Complex Litigation, Parts I and II, §§3.11 (rev. ed. }
1977). Lo 3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer E pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 be, and the same hereby is,
DENIED.
FOR THE PANEL: }
R W. Harper | oo : | .Acting Chairman | : :
*Judge Andrew A. Caffrey took no part in the decision of | this matter. :Case MDL No. 477 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2 ~ ~ SCHEDULE A MDL~-477 -- In reWestern Electric Co., Inc. Employment Practices -Litigation District of Arizona Equzl Employment Opportunity Commission V. Western ElectricCo., et al., C.A. No. Civ-76-525-Phx.-W - TT Northern District ofIllinois : Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Western Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 78C3951 TTT
Vous vous demandez comment ce texte s’applique à votre situation ?
Consultation gratuite, sans engagement
Décrivez votre situation. Notre équipe vous recontactera par e-mail pour votre consultation.
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.