In re Enterprise Rent-a-Car Wage & Hour, MDL No. 2056.

Decision Date10 June 2009
Docket NumberMDL No. 2056.
CourtJudicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
PartiesIn re ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR WAGE & HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION.

Before JOHN G. HEYBURN, II, Chairman, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR. and FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., Judges of the Panel.

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN, II, Chairman.

Before the entire Panel: Plaintiff in an action pending in the Northern District of Illinois (Averill) has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in the Northern District of Illinois (including the moving plaintiffs action) and five actions pending in the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Southern District of New York, and the Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively, as listed on Schedule A.1

Plaintiffs in the six other constituent actions support centralization. With the exception of plaintiff in the Western District of Pennsylvania action, who urges that the Panel select that district as transferee district, all responding plaintiffs support selection of the Northern District of Illinois. Responding defendants Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Inc., and its affiliates, however, oppose centralization, and, if the Panel orders centralization over their objections, ask that the Eastern District of Missouri be selected as transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these seven actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Western District of Pennsylvania will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions involve allegations that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by misclassifying their assistant managers as salaried and thus not entitled to overtime. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery and prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly with respect to plaintiffs' multiple requests for certification of a nationwide collective action), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

In opposing centralization, defendants argue, inter alia, that the actions do not share factual issues, because individual Enterprise subsidiaries—unique to each state—employed the assistant branch managers and were responsible for classifying them as exempt and ensuring compliance with the FLSA. We are not persuaded by this argument, however, because the record indicates that the involvement vel non of Missouri-based Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Inc., in overseeing its subsidiaries and, in particular, setting policies affecting the employment of assistant managers is, in fact, an open question common to the actions in the litigation. On this and any other common issues, centralization under Section 1407 has the benefit of placing all actions in this docket before a single judge who can structure...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Emp't Practices Litig.. Nickolas Hickton
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • August 13, 2010
    ...memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer on December 1, 2008. (Docket No. 40.) On June 10, 2009, 626 F.Supp.2d 1325 (U.S.Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2009), the Hickton and Averill cases, among others, were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for pret......
  • United States Judicial Panel
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • January 13, 2011
    ...for the Western District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. See 626 F.Supp.2d 1325 (J.P.M.L. 2009). Since that time, 4 additional action(s) have been transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania. With the consent of that ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT