In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036.
| Decision Date | 10 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | MDL No. 2036. |
| Citation | 626 F.Supp.2d 1333 |
| Parties | In re CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION. |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
Before the entire Panel*: Plaintiff in one Southern District of Florida action (Tomes) has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization in the Southern District of Florida of three actions and any later-filed related actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff in the District of New Jersey action supports the motion. Defendants Wachovia Bank, N.A. (Wachovia) and Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) initially opposed centralization of actions involving different bank defendants in one MDL proceeding, but at the Panel's hearing session, Wachovia and Bank of America stated that they support the creation of one MDL docket encompassing all overdraft actions. Wachovia supports centralization of all actions in the Southern District of Florida. Bank of America prefers selection of the Western District of North Carolina, but alternatively supports selection of the Florida district as transferee forum. Plaintiffs in two Northern District of California actions as well as the Citibank1 defendants in one of these actions oppose centralization of all overdraft actions in one MDL proceeding; if the Panel deems centralization appropriate, opponents suggest the Northern District of California as transferee district. Plaintiffs in several potential tag-along actions take a similar opposing position.
This litigation presently consists of five actions listed on Schedule A and pending in three districts as follows: two actions each in the Northern District of California and the Southern District of Florida and one action in the District of New Jersey.2
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Southern District of Florida will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions share factual questions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees by various bank defendants on their customer's checking accounts in a manner to maximize these fees. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
Opponents of centralization of all overdraft actions in one MDL proceeding argue that unique questions of fact predominate in actions brought against different bank defendants over any common factual questions. While there will be some unique questions of fact from bank-tobank, these actions share sufficient factual questions relating to industry-wide bank posting policies and procedures to warrant centralization of all actions in one MDL docket. Transfer to a single district under Section 1407 has the salutary effect of placing all related actions before one court which can formulate a pretrial program that: (1) allows pretrial proceedings with respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with pretrial proceedings on common issues, In re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, 464 F.Supp. 969, 974 (J.P.M.L.1979); and (2) ensures that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Tranche ActionsTomes v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig.)
...to this Court as part of MDL 2036, by order of the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation dated June 10, 2009, 626 F.Supp.2d 1333 (U.S.Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2009). Following transfer, Class Counsel interviewed over 100 BofA customers and potential plaintiffs to gather information about BofA......
-
King v. Carolina First Bank
...TD Bank settled for $62 million for class members for the period of December 1, 2003, through August 15, 2010. In re Checking Acct. Overdraft Litigation, 626 F.Supp.2d 1333 (U.S.Jud.Pan.Multi.Lit.2009). (Am. Compl. ¶ 3). Carolina First was not part of TD Bank during this period. (Am. Compl.......
-
In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig.
...bank defendants on their customer[s'] checking accounts in an manner to maximize those fees.' See In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1335 (J.P.M.L. 2009)." (DE # 847). On December 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. (DE # 994). BancorpSouth,......
-
First Tranche ActionsGarcia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig.)
...was created in June 2009, with the active support of Wachovia and ultimately Wells Fargo as well. See In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 626 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1334 (J.P.M.L.2009) (“Wachovia supports centralization of all actions in the Southern District of Florida”); Wells Fargo Respons......
-
The Effectiveness of Private Enforcement and Class Actions to Secure Antitrust Enforcement
...litigation (MDL 2036), which was consolidated before the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida (626 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L. 2009)). The other two settlements derived from relatedfederal lawsuits that were not part of MDL 2036 (Trombley v. Nat’l City Bank, F. Su......