The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
:
ALEXANDRA UCHENIK, individually and on :
behalf of all others similarly :
situated, : 20cv3162 (DLC)
:
Plaintiff, : ORDER
-v- :
:
MCGRAW HILL, LLC, PEARSON EDUCATION, :
INC., CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., and :
EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS ENFORCEMENT :
GROUP, :
:
Defendants. :
:
--------------------------------------- X
DENISE COTE, District Judge:
This action was filed on April 22, 2020. On April 30,
Martha Barabas filed a motion to intervene, representing that
she previously filed a similar case in the District of New
Jersey and seeking to transfer this action to that district
under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. See Complaint, Barabas v. Barnes &
Noble College Booksellers, LLC, No. 20cv2442 (D.N.J. Mar. 5,
2020). On May 11, the motion to intervene was opposed by both
plaintiff and defendants. Barabas filed her reply on May 14.
On May 7, defendants filed a motion with the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking the transfer of this
case -- and seven other purportedly related cases, including
Barabas -- to the District of Delaware, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1407. Briefing on the motion before the JPML is due to be fully
submitted on June 4. See Inclusive Access Course Materials
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2946 (J.P.M.L. May 7, 2020). A
hearing on the JPML motion will likely be scheduled for July.
Plaintiff and defendants argue that the Court should wait
to decide the motion to intervene until after the JPML has
resolved defendants’ motion to transfer. The JPML has
“repeatedly . . . noted that where a reasonable prospect exists
that the resolution of a Section 1404 motion or motions could
eliminate the multidistrict character of a litigation, transfer
under Section 1404 is preferable to Section 1407
centralization.” In re Hudson’s Bay Co. Customer Data Sec.
Breach Litig., 326 F. Supp. 3d 1372, 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2018)
(citation omitted). Nonetheless, Section 1407 centralization
may be a more efficient use of judicial resources when there are
contested transfer motions in multiple districts. See In re
Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litig., 325 F. Supp. 3d 1369, 1371 &
n.3 (J.P.M.L. 2018). In deciding whether to stay a case, a
court must consider the “particular facts before it and the
extent to which such a stay would work a hardship, inequity, or
injustice to a party, the public or the court.” Louis Vuitton
Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 99 (2d Cir. 2012).
Here, the parties differ over which of three judicial
districts should handle this case. Defendants favor the
District of Delaware; proposed intervenor favors the District of
New Jersey; and plaintiff favors the Southern District of New
York. Barabas, and other related cases pending in the District
of New Jersey, have been stayed pending the JPML decision. See
Order Staying Case, Barabas, No. 20cv2442 (D.N.J. May 11, 2020).
Under the circumstances, the JPML is best positioned to evaluate
in the first instance whether consolidation into an MDL is
appropriate. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that proceedings in this case are stayed pending
the JPML decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a
status letter by August 14, 2020.
Dated: New York, New York
May 15, 2020
United Btates District Judge