United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2002

In re George Andrew Bratton Litigation

In re George Andrew Bratton Litigation
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · Decided June 17, 2002 · Hodges, Keenan, Sear, Selya, Gibbons, Jensen, Motz
206 F. Supp. 2d 1366; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11191 (Federal Supplement, Second Series)
In re George Andrew Bratton Litigation

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation consists of two actions now pending in the Central District of California and Eastern District of California. Plaintiff in each action, George Andrew Bratton, moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Central District of California. Responding Central California defendants take no position on this motion.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that given the minimal number of actions pending in adjacent federal districts involved in this docket, Section 1407 centralization is not warranted. We point out that alternatives to Section 1407 transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings, or both. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1978). See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these two actions is denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.