In re Midpoint Development, LLC, Litigation

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

This litigation currently consists of the five actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in three districts as follows: two actions each in the Northern District of Mississippi and the Western District of Oklahoma and one action in the Northern District of Texas. Meridith R. Brown and related entities 1 move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Western District of Oklahoma. Responding party Lucien Crosland supports Section 1407 centralization, but suggests either the Northern District of Texas or the Northern District of Mississippi as transferee district. All other responding parties oppose transfer. 2

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel is not persuaded that these actions share sufficient common questions of fact to warrant Section 1407 transfer and that centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the actions listed on Schedule A is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL-16S7 — In re Midpoint Development, LLC, Litigation

Northern District of Mississippi

Meridith Brown, et al. v. Supertrail Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al., Bky. Advy. No. 1:02-1265

Meridith Brown, et al. v. Supertrail Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al., Bky. Advy. No. 1:02-1283

Western District of Oklahoma

Midpoint Construction, Inc. v. Lucien B. Crosland, et al., C.A. No. 5:02-904

Judy Circo, etc. v. Bayhills Development Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:03-1292

Northern District of Texas

Meridith Brown, et al. v. Toile, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-1405