In re: Medi-Cal Reimbursement Rate Reduction Litigation
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Aba Law Sch. Accreditation Litig. (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2018)
- In re Federal Housing Finance Agency (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2016)
- In re OSF Healthcare System Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2016)
- In re LVNV Funding, LLC, "Time-Barred" Proof of Claim Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2015)
- In re Cleartalk-ZTE Arbitration Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2014)
- In re National Ass'n for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2014)
- In re Real Estate Transfer Tax Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the entire Panel: Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California action have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Central District of California. Plaintiffs in one Central District of California action support the motion. Plaintiffs in three Central District of California actions oppose centralization or, alternatively, suggest a stay in the Northern District of California action. Defendant David Maxwell-Jolly opposes centralization.
This litigation currently consists of six actions listed on Schedule A and pending in two districts, five actions in the Central District of California and one action in the Northern District of California.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that the benefits of Section 1407 centralization are not significant enough to justify transfer of these cases. The actions here are pending in two districts within the same state and, by and large, raise strictly legal issues. One of the Panel’s prime considerations is often the need to avoid inconsistent rulings on similar issues. Usually, that consideration is bolstered by the concern for duplicative and burdensome discovery leading up to the legal issues. Here, very little discovery appears necessary prior to the joinder of the legal issues. Merely to avoid two federal courts having to decide the same issue is, by itself, usually not sufficient to justify Section 1407 centralization.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these six actions is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2069 — IN RE: MEDI-CAL REIMBURSEMENT RATE REDUCTION LITIGATION
Central District of California
Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al. v. Sandra Shewry, et al, C.A. No. 2:08-3315
California Association for Health Services at Home v. Sandra Shewry, C.A. No. 2:08-7045
California Medical Transportation As sociation, Inc. v. Sandra Shewry, C.A. No. 2:08-7046
Managed Pharmacy Care, et al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, C.A. No. 2:09-382 California Pharmacists Association, et al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, C.A. No. 2:09-722
*1379 Northern District of California
Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, et at. v. Sandra Shewry, C.A. No. 3:08-5173
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.