IN RE: United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. Employment Practices Litigation

Case MDL No. 437 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 3
(UUDIBAL PANEL GH eT
HULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION REN .
LE SRE -
DOCKET NO. 437 Fie : : 2% | Lotk 10 1950 CSBEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Et a ET
5 0 wh! Lon - EE ol . ~
IN RE UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. EMPLOYMEY EH oe 0. tian ooPRACTICES LITIGATION Hb PARES
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER=*
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to EE
28 U.S.C §1407, brought by plaintiffs in the two actions Col
listed on the attached Schedule A, for transfer of the EE
action pending in the Western District of Missouri to the Soo
District of Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial LT
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 oo
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Given
the minimal number of actions before us, movants have failed i
to persuade us that any common questions of fact involved SE
in these two actions are sufficiently complex, and that ol
the accompanying discovery will be so time-consuming, as a
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 :
order to minimize the possibility of duplicative discovery SER
and/or conflicting pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Ee
Penitentiary Postal Procedure Litigation, 465 F. Supp. CU
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. ed. 1977).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer oo :
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 be, and the same hereby is, EE
DENIED. ** REN
FOR THE PANEL:
Clerc Ce CHL IE
Co Andrew A. caterer): Chairman a
*Judge Edward S. Northrop took no part in the decision N
of this matter. :
**Judges Robert H. Schnacke and Sam C. Pointer, Jr. dissent _ :	from this decision of the Panel.

Case MDL No. 437 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 3 :o-
( SCHEDULE A
MDL,-437 —- In re United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. Emvlovment
Practices Litigation : ;
Western District of Missouri |
Leatha	M. Green, et al. v. U. S.Fidelity & Guaranty Co., et al., =
C.A. No. 78-0705-CV--4
District of Minnesota :
Sheila Mead, et al. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
: ~C.A. No. 4-77-16
|
|
|
oT
|
|

Case MDL No. 437 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 3 |
= MG ;
JUDIE PERT Po a
MULTI LRT SR SRE
FRR ROE Id yy, | Co )0c -2 1980 f Ze EEE
DOCKET NO. 437 PARCEL Lot Le
CLERK	OF Nr wanst Sh Te
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION :
IN RE UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
LITIGATION
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Sa ey
on July 10, 1980, the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. EE
§1407, denied a motion to centralize two actions in the Co
District of Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial CT a
proceedings. In re United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. .
Employment Practices Litigation (unpublished order). :
Plaintiff in the Missouri action and plaintiff-intervenor
in both actions have each moved the Panel to reconsider Co oo
our July 10, 1980 order and to transfer pursuant to Section
1407 the Missouri action to the District of Minnesota for :
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the ET
action pending there. The Panel has fully considered this a
motion on the basis of the papers submitted.= Ce
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
FOR THE PANEL: g SEE
2) 72 |	7 > CC A OA .
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman
1/ The Panel has deemed this motion submitted on the basis i. SS
of the papers filed. See Rule 13(b), R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D.
561, 571 (1978). oe
| " tr -