IN RE: Michaels Stores, Inc., Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: MICHAELS STORES, INC., FAIR CREDIT
REPORTING ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION MDL No. 2615
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: Plaintiff in a Northern District of Texas action (Castro) moves under 28
U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of Texas.1
Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc. (Michaels Stores) does not oppose centralization in the Northern
District of Texas. Plaintiffs in the District of New Jersey action initially opposed centralization, but
at oral argument plaintiffs announced that they do not oppose centralization in the District of New
Jersey. This litigation consists of three putative nationwide class actions pending in the Western
District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, and the Northern District of Texas, as listed on
Schedule A.2
After considering the argument of counsel, we find that the actions in this litigation involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of New Jersey will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Plaintiffs completed an online application for employment with defendant Michaels Stores. These
putative nationwide class actions share factual questions about whether Michaels Stores failed to
properly disclose to plaintiffs that their credit reports would be accessed in connection with their
employment application, as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and
similar state laws. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery on potentially complex
factual inquiries such as the willfulness of defendant’s conduct; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings,
particularly on class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary.
While no party opposes centralization, they disagree on selection of the transferee forum.
Given that defendant Michaels Stores has a nationwide presence and the plaintiffs hale from
numerous states, either of the suggested transferee districts could be a suitable forum for this
litigation. On balance, we are persuaded that the District of New Jersey is the appropriate transferee
district. The District of New Jersey is where the first-filed action in this litigation is pending before
The initial moving plaintiff, Michele Castro, reportedly accepted an offer of judgment;1
plaintiff Castro was substituted with Northern District of Texas plaintiff Janice Bercut on March 17,
2014.
The parties have notified the Panel of two related putative class actions; these actions, and2
any other related action, are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.
Case MDL No. 2615 Document 26 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 3

-2-
Judge Kevin McNulty. Further, this district offers a readily accessible and convenient transferee
forum. We are confident that Judge McNulty will steer this controversy on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
of the District of New Jersey are transferred to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable Kevin McNulty for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the action pending there and listed on Schedule A.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer
Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle
R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry
Case MDL No. 2615 Document 26 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 3

IN RE: MICHAELS STORES, INC., FAIR CREDIT
REPORTING ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION MDL No. 2615
SCHEDULE A
Western District of Missouri
BURNSIDE v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., C.A. No. 6:15-3010
District of New Jersey
GRAHAM v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., C.A. No. 2:14-7563
Northern District of Texas
CASTRO v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., C.A. No. 3:15-276
Case MDL No. 2615 Document 26 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 3