Free Request - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:03-cv—O1741—PGR Document 95-5 FiIed12/06/2005 Page10f3

196 F.Supp.2d 1373 Page 70
196 F.Supp.2d 1373
(Cite as: 196 F.Supp.2d 1373)
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1407.
Inre FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE *1374 BEFORE the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
CLAIl\/IS REPRESENTATIVES OVERTIME Litigation.
PAY »
LITIGATION. BEFORE: HODGES, Chairman, KEENAN, SEAR,
Nos. MDL-1439, C.A. 2:02-765, C.A. 2:01-74393, SELYA, GIBBONS, JENSEN and MOTZ, Judges of
C.A. 0:01-2030, C.A. 1:01-1196, the Panel.
C.A. 3:01-1105, C.A. 5:01-259, C.A. 5:01-244,
C.A. 2:01-1500. TRANSFER ORDER
March 12, 2002. HODGES, Chairman.
Motion was filed to centralize actions for coordinated This litigation presently consists of eight actions: one
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Judicial action each in the Central District of California, the
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Hodges, Chairman, Eastern District of Michigan, the District of
held that: (1) centralization was appropriate, and (2) Minnesota, the District of New Mexico, the District
the District of Oregon was the appropriate transferee of Oregon, the Eastern District of Texas, the Southern
forum. District of Texas and the Western District of
Washington. [FN1] Before the Panel is an amended
Transfer ordered. motion by the FIE defendants, [FN2] pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize these actions in either the
West Headnotes District of Oregon or District of New Mexico for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All
[1] F€d€1'¤l Civil PF0€€d¤11‘€ QFD9 plaintiffs oppose centralization. If the Panel deems
170Ak9 centralization appropriate, plaintiffs variously suggest
C€¤iY¤liZ¤ii0¤ Of eerierrs 1°0T €00Ydi¤iit€d OY centralization in the Central District of California,
eeuseiidered pretrial proceedings was apprepriare Etictctii District of Michigan ct Eactcm District of
where the actions involved common questions of fact Taxaa Soma plaintiffs altamattvaly Suggest that the
_ erisiria evi vi Simiier eiiesriiiens that ¤ir>fe¤ri¤¤r’S Piiiiei defer its sccticti 1407 niiicg iii order tc permit
claims representatives were entitled to overtime pay Soma Ot tha ttatlstamt watts to rule OH Pending
under either the FLSA Or Varieus rrrrer Wage and motions to remand actions to state court.
hour statutes. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1407; Fair Labor
Standards Act Of 1938* § 1 et S€q" 29 U‘S‘C‘A‘ § FN 1. Four actions--Paula Chase, etal. v. Farmers
201 er See1· Insurance Exchange, et al., D. Colorado, C.A. No.
1:01-2012, Mark Severn, et al. v. Farmers
[2] Federal Courts @,7*157 Insurance Exchange, er al., E.D. Michigan, C.A.
17OBk157 No. 2:01-74460, Randy McLeod, et al. v. Farmers
Upon centralization of actions for coordinated or Insnrnnee Exe/range. et nl-. D~ Nevada, C·A· N0-
consolidated pretrial proceedings, pending motions to 2¥O1·U83· arid Jennner Ferre V- Fnnnieni Ininnnnnn
remand actions to the respective state courts could be E’“’h“"8“· e' "l·» W-D- Weshmgtem CA- Ne
presented to and decided by the transferee tcdgc. za *01-1657--have bear rrmrrrdrd _r¤ site mrt-
U-SICIA § 1407. Accordingly, the question of inclusion of these four
r ` actions in Section 1407 proceedings is moot.
[3] Federal Courts @:152.5 Tvtéo actions on Schedule A--recently filed Michigan
17OBk152 5 an -Ca1forn1a actions- we-re not mcluded in the
‘ (Formerly HOBKIS2) Section 1407 motions in this docket, but are now
_ _ _ included in this transfer order, because all parties to
Fir: Drgrricr of firearm wrts the apptopriate (transfgree tiiccc actions have stated iii writing their respective
O1'llII1 OI` C€HtI`H IZHUOH O actions OI' COOP 1HHt€ OY pggiflgllg and had [hg gppgrtunlty [O present Org]
consolidated pretrial proceedings, where an action argument at the Panel’s January 31, 2002, hearing
was pending there, the Oregon district was relatively session.
convenient for most parties and witnesses who were
located in the Western United States, and this tribunal FN2. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers
had the resources available to manage this litigation. Insurance Company of Washington, Rick M.
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Case 2:03-cv—01741—PGR Document 95-5 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 2 of 3

196 F.Supp.2d 1373 Page 71
(Cite as: 196 F.Supp.2d 1373, *1374)
Shriver, Rion Groves, Susan Bithell, Marty Draper,
Texas FEl.I'1`H€I`S II'1S\1I'Hl'lC€ COIIIDEIII}', FEITHCIS Cgntyal Di_g[;·jC[ Of Calgcgywia
Insurance Group of Companies, and Farmers
GMP, I¤¤· <¤¤¤¤<>¤V¤lv fcfwed *¤ as Fmt Elizabeth nay, et az., V. param Insurance
_ _ _ Exchange, et al., C.A. No. 2:02-765
[1][2] On the basis of the papers filed and hearing
session held, the Panel finds that the actions in this Eastern District OfMrChigrm
litigation involve common questions of fact arising out
gf Smear 311€a¤¤¤¤S that EIB was f¢vf€S餤¤v¢S Michael Stemer V. rama Insurance Exchange co.,
"1375 are entitled to overtime pay under either the incr C_A_ NO_ 2:O1_74393
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C § 201, et seq.,
and/or r various states' wage and hour rstatutes. District 0fMim,tes0m
Centralization under Section 1407 in the District of
Oregon will serve the convenience of the parties and Gary Jr Milner, et all V. Farmers Insurance
witnesses and promote the Just and efficient conduct Exchange at at C A NO 0,012030
of the litigation, while accordingly being necessary ir1 ’ " ` ' ` `
order rto avoid duplication of discovery, prevent District OJCNEW Mexico
inconsistent pretrial rulings and conserve the
icsinirccs Of the pamcS’ Bien Coimscl and the Robert Salcida, et al. v. Farmers Insurance
Judiciary. We note that pending motions to remand Exchrm E rt at C A NO 1_O1_1196
actions to their respective state courts can be g ' " ` ` ` `
presented to and decided by the transferee judge. See, D. t . t O
ag., In re Ivy, 901 me 7 (za ca.1990); m re Air L" "C Of ’“g°"
Crash Disaster at Flarida Everglades 0n December Rrbrrr C Wrrrcrrr rr at r Frrrmrrr Irrsrrrmrr
29, 1972, 368 F.S . 812, 813 J.P.M.L.1973 . ‘ ’ ' ‘
upp ( ) Exchange, c.A. N0. 3:01- 1105
[3] We are persuaded that the District of Oregon is _ _
the appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Eastern Duma Ofjiems
We note that i) an action is pending there, ii) the _
Omgon district is relatively Convenient for most Robbie S. Puckett v. Farmers Insurance Exchange,
parties and witnesses who are located in the Western C·A· N°· $91-259
United States, and iii) this tribunal has the resources _ _
available to manage this litigation. Sgmhgm Duma ef Texas
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED than pursuant to gg Roland Miller, Jr., et al. v. Texas Farmers Insurance
U.s.c. § 1407, me actions iisiea on me attached Ce eta!-V C-A-N0-5101-244
Schedule A and pending outside the District of Oregon
are transferred to the District of Oregon and, with the Western District 0f Washington
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
Robert E. Jones for coordinated or consolidated Robert B. Dietz, et al. v. Farmers Insurance
pretrial proceedings with the action pending there. Exchange C0., Inc., C.A. No. 2:01-1500
SCHEDULE A 196 F.Supp.2d 1373
MDL-1439--In re Farmers Insurance Exchange
Claims Representative? Overtime Pay Litigation END OF DOCUMENT
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Case 2:03-cv—01741—PGR Document 95-5 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01741-PGR

Document 95-5

Filed 12/06/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01741-PGR

Document 95-5

Filed 12/06/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01741-PGR

Document 95-5

Filed 12/06/2005

Page 3 of 3