In re: AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Serv. Sales Tax Litig.
| Decision Date | 07 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. MDL 2147,MDL 2147 |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
| Parties | IN RE: AT & T MOBILITY WIRELESS DATA SERVICES SALES TAX LITIGATION. |
IN RE: AT & T MOBILITY WIRELESS DATA SERVICES SALES TAX LITIGATION.
No. MDL 2147.
United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.
April 7, 2010.
Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR.*, KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., DAVID G. TRAGER*, Judges of the Panel.
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the entire Panel*: Common defendant AT & T Mobility LLC (AT & T Mobility) has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in 27 actions and twelve potentially related actions support the motion. Plaintiffs in two potentially related actions pending in the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Florida, respectively, suggest centralization in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff in a potentially related action pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana suggests centralization in that district. Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Michigan Wiand action and the Southern District of Texas Johnson action oppose centralization and/or inclusion of their actions in centralized proceedings or, alternatively, support centralization in the Northern District of Illinois.
This litigation currently consists of 29 actions listed on Schedules A and B and pending in 28 districts as follows: two actions in the Eastern District of Michigan and one action each in the Northern District of Alabama, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the District of Colorado, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Southern District of Illinois, the Northern District of Indiana, the Southern District of Iowa, the District of Kansas, the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Western District of Louisiana, the District of Massachusetts, the Southern District of Mississippi, the Western District of Missouri, the District of Nebraska, the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Southern District of Ohio, the Western District of Oklahoma, the Western District of Pennsylvania, the District of Rhode Island, the District of South Carolina, the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Southern District of Texas, and the Western District of Texas.1
The issue in every one of these cases is whether the collection of particular state and local taxes violates the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) prohibition against the imposition of such taxes on internet access. In theory, deciding these cases could involve applying 50 different state tax regimes to the ITFA. Not surprisingly, certain plaintiffs argue, inter alia, that (1) applicability of the ITFA will vary from state to state and each state will require a different analysis; and (2) centralization could encourage an anti-class action direction to these actions in that defendant might later argue against nationwide class certification based on differences in the impact of the applicable tax law on a state by state basis. The Eastern District of Michigan Wiand plaintiff suggests that, if the Panel grants centralization, the actions should be remanded to their transferor courts for rulings on class certification.
We have considered these arguments carefully because they have some quite obvious merit and logic to their credit. Nevertheless, we find that the benefits of centralization are significant and that a transferee judge can easily deal with the difficulties inherent to centralization. Section 1407 does not require a complete identity or even a majority of common factual or legal issues as a prerequisite to transfer. Discovery regarding AT & T Mobility's billing practices will undoubtedly overlap and many of the legal issues will turn on similar facts and law. Consequently, centralization will save considerable judicial time and will prevent the likelihood of inconsistent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue
...sales tax on charges for Internet access violated certain State laws and the ITFA. See In re AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Servs. Sales Tax Litig., 710 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1379-1380 (J.P.M.L. 2010) ; Sipple v. Hayward, 225 Cal. App. 4th 349, 353, 170 Cal.Rptr.3d 199 (2014). The lawsuits were ......
- Am. Signature, Inc. v. U.S.
-
In re Wells Fargo Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig. (No. III), MDL No. 2266.
...to the just and expeditious resolution of these actions to the overall benefit of the parties. In re AT & T Mobility Wireless Data Services Sales Tax Litig., 710 F.Supp.2d 1378 (J.P.M.L.2010). It may be, on further refinement of the issues and close scrutiny by the transferee judge, that so......