In re Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | MDL No. 2335. |
| Citation | 857 F.Supp.2d 1371 |
| Parties | IN RE: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP. FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS LITIGATION. |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
857 F.Supp.2d 1371
IN RE: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP. FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS LITIGATION.
MDL No. 2335.
United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.
April 16, 2012.
Before KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., BARBARA S. JONES, PAUL J. BARBADORO, and CHARLES R. BREYER, Judges of the Panel.
[857 F.Supp.2d 1372]
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman.
Before the Panel:* Defendant Bank of New York Mellon entities 1 (collectively BNY Mellon) move to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of New York. The litigation presently comprises eight actions—three pending in the Southern District of New York, two in the Northern District of California, two in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and one in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as listed on Schedule A. The Panel has been notified of one additional related federal action.2
Responding individual defendants in the three Southern District of New York actions support centralization in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff in the Southern District of New York Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System (LAMPERS) action, which is the only action involving alleged violations of the federal securities laws, agrees that the Southern District of New York is the most suitable district for LAMPERS and any related, subsequently-filed securities class action.3 Plaintiffs in the two Northern District of California actions, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) action, and the two Western District of Pennsylvania actions oppose centralization. If the Panel grants BNY Mellon's Section 1407 motion over their objections, then plaintiffs in the two Northern District of California actions argue that the Panel should select the Northern District of California as transferee district, while the Eastern District of Pennsylvania SEPTA plaintiff supports selection of either the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and also asks that the Panel defer transfer of its action until a ruling on a motion to dismiss pending therein.
Plaintiffs opposing centralization argue that the theories of recovery differ significantly from action to action,4 and that certain actions are brought against not only BNY Mellon but also defendants not named in other of the actions. Where common factual issues exist, however, the presence of different legal theories among the subject actions is not a bar to centralization. See In re: M3Power Razor Sys. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 398 F.Supp.2d 1363, 1364 (J.P.M.L.2005) (“The presence of differing legal theories is outweighed when the underlying actions, such as the actions here, arise from a common factual core.”); see also In re: Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 802 F.Supp.2d 1374, 1376–77 (J.P.M.L.2011) ( “[C]entralization under Section 1407
[857 F.Supp.2d 1373]
does not require a complete identity or even a majority of common factual or legal issues as a prerequisite to transfer.”). Centralization also does not require a complete identity of parties. In re: Navistar 6.0 L Diesel Engine Prods. Liab. Litig., 777 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1348 (J.P.M.L.2011). Indeed, we typically have included securities, derivative, and ERISA actions in a single docket, even where the cast of defendants varies from action to action. See, e.g., In re: BP Sec., Derivative and Emp't Retirement Income Sec. Act (ERISA) Litig., 734 F.Supp.2d 1380 (J.P.M.L.2010); In re: Federal Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n Sec. Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., 370 F.Supp.2d 1359 (J.P.M.L.2005).
Opposing plaintiffs also argue that centralization would work only an incomplete fix, given the pendency of not only the Government's action in the Southern District of New York (which, as noted, BNY Mellon elected not to include in its motion) but also related state court cases. Our decision to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of New York, however, obviates any need for the Panel to determine whether the Government's action should be formally included in the MDL (over the Government's apparent objections), while,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States
......Sullivan, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, of New York, NY, for the Plaintiff. Justin R. Miller, Trial Attorney, International Trade ... should construe them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Bank of Guam v. United States, 578 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2009) (quoting ...662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). ......
-
Interstate Serv. Provider, Inc. v. Jordan
...U.S. 405, 410 (2015) (quoting MANUAL FORCOMPLEX LITIGATION § 20.131 (4th ed. 2004)). See In re: Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp. Foreign Exch. Transactions Litig., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2012) ("Centralization will avoid duplicative discovery, eliminate the risk of inconsistent pretr......
-
Stryker Lfit V40 Femoral Head Prods. Liab. Litig., Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
...centralization,'" and transferring the case to this court.Transfer Order [#18] (quoting In re: Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Foreign Exch. Transactions Litig., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2012)). On June 24, 2019, Plaintiff moved to lift the stay and remand. Pl.'s Mtn. [#25]. The c......
-
In re U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Data Sec. Breach Litig.
...Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of parties. See In re: Bank of N.Y. Mellon Foreign Exch. Transactions Litig., 857 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1373 (J.P.M.L.2012). And the presence of a unique legal theory in a given action is not significant where all actions arise from......