Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 262
the majority of the merger and alleged anti-competitive conduct occurred there. The
plaintiffs argued that the merger was not the focus of the litigation, and instead the
conduct at issue was from the alleged anticompetitive effects that took place afterward.
The plaintiffs asserted that New York was no more convenient a forum for witnesses
than Illinois and that they should have substantial deference as the plaintiffs in the
matter. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, and denied the motion to transfer venue.
Likewise, in the case of In Re Klamath River Basin Litigation, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
183761 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 4, 2022), the JPML found that transfer of venue was not
appropriate when it could lead to a potential stay in the matter that would drag out the
proceedings. The plaintiffs moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon or, alternatively, in the District of
Nevada or the District of New Mexico. This litigation consisted of two class actions
pending in the Northern District of California and five class actions pending in the
District of Oregon. The JPML found that centralization would not be necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation. Id. at *2. The JPML determined that the seven actions involved different
aspects of the operation of the Klamath Project, would not entail significant discovery or
particularly complex pretrial proceedings, and would be decided on an administrative
record, such that discovery would be minimal. Id. at *3. The JPML further noted that two
of the actions had been stayed in their entirety and several others were temporarily
stayed. There were also several actions in which summary judgment rulings were
expected in the short term. The JPML thereby concluded that centralization would only
delay these adjudications and increase the procedural complexity. For these reasons,
the JPML denied the motion to centralize the actions.
The ruling in the case of In Re U.S. Postal Services Litigation, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
184116 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 7, 2022), also involved efforts at consolidation and centralization.
The defendants, the United States Postal Service and Louis DeJoy (USPS), attempted
to transfer multiple actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The JPML rejected the motion on the grounds
that judicial economy would not be served by a transfer of venue. The litigation
consisted of three actions, including two in the Northern District of California and one in
the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs all opposed centralization. The JPML
concluded that centralization was not necessary for the convenience of the parties and
witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Id. at *1. The JPML
determined that the actions involved separate challenges, and that the course of each
of the actions was unclear given the changes in USPS’s vehicle acquisition plans since
the actions were filed. The JPML also opined that the actions would turn primarily on
questions of law with respect to whether USPS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious
and violated of the National Environmental Protection Act. The JPML concluded that
since the parties successfully coordinated the cases thus far, and that continued
informal coordination among the parties seemed feasible, centralization was not
necessary. The JPML thereby denied the motion to centralize the actions.
261
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
