In re Dry Bean Revenue Prot. Crop Ins. Litig.

Counsel

After considering the argument of counsel, we conclude that Section 1407 centralization would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Both of the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that actions by the federal defendants precluded plaintiffs from presenting recoverable claims under the Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement of their crop insurance for the year 2015. In identical complaints, plaintiffs seek review of the federal defendants' actions under the Administrative Procedure Act and, in fact, all plaintiffs' claims originally were pending in a single action in the Eastern District of Michigan. But we find proponents have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the need for centralization. See In re: Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. (No. II) , 753 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010) ("where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the moving party generally bears a heavier burden of demonstrating the need for centralization"). Just two actions are pending in this litigation, and the parties are represented by common counsel in each. The Panel has held that "centralization under Section 1407 should be the last solution after considered review of all other options." In re: Best Buy, Inc., California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig. , 804 F.Supp.2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2011). The parties have not addressed whether they have considered alternatives to Section 1407 centralization, and it appears feasible for the involved parties and courts to cooperate informally to coordinate any overlap in pretrial proceedings and minimize the potential for inconsistent rulings., IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.