Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Bank of America Corp. et al, No. 1:2013cv00490 - Document 25 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION: Based upon the conclusions set forth above, the Defendants' motion to stay is granted. It is so ordered re: (11 in 1:13-cv-00491-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidist rict Litigation's Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by Countrywide Securities Corp ., CWMBS, Inc., CWalt, Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., CWHEQ, Inc., (11 in 1:13-cv-00501-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation' s Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by Countrywide Securities Corp., CWalt, Inc., Count rywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., Countrywide Capital Markets L.L.C., (11 in 1:13-cv-00492-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by Countrywide Securities Corp., CWMBS, Inc., CWalt, Inc., Cou ntrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., (11 in 1:13-cv-00494-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by CWEHQ, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp., CWMBS, Inc., CWalt, Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., CWABS, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., (11 in 1:13-cv-00490-RWS) MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization). MOTION to Stay (Countrywide's Notice of Motion to Stay Pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's Decision on Centralization) filed by Countrywide Securities Corp., CWalt, Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/12/2013) (cd)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --- -- -x ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Plaintiff, 13 eiv. 490 OPINION - against BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. -- X ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Plaintiff, 13 eiv. 491 OPINION against ­ BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- --- --x PHOENIX LIGHT SF LIMITED/ et al., Plaintiffs, 13 eiv. 492 OPINION against ­ BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. --- -- -- ---- - ---- X 1 PHOENIX LIGHT SF LIMITED, et ., aintiffs, 13 Civ. 494 OPINION - against BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. --­ -X SILVER ELMS CDO II LTD, et al., Plaintiffs, 13 Civ. 501 OPINION against BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ----­ ------------------------­ --X A P PEA RAN C E S: At for Plaintiffs GUZOV, LLC 900 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 By: Anne W. Salisbury, Esq. Debra J. Guzov, Esq. David J. Kaplan, Esq. Attorneys for Countrywide Defendants GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP 53 State Street Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 By: Daniel Roeser, Esq. Brian E. Pastuszenski, Inez H. Friedman-Boyce, Esq. 2 Sweet, D. J. , Defendants Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Securit s Corporation, Countrywide Capital markets, LLC, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., CWABS 1 Inc' CWHEQI Inc' l and CWMBS, Inc. (collectively, l CWALT, Inc. "Countrywide ll ) 1 have moved to stay five related cases 1 pending a final determination by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "JPML II ) on whether to centralize these cases with 34 other cases assigned to the Countrywide mortgage-backed securities ("MBS multidistrict litigation Securities Lit l In re Count II ) -backed --------------~----------~~---------- ion, Case No. 11 ML-02265-MRP-MAN (C.D. Cal.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pending in the Central District of California (the "Countrywide MBS MDLII) . Plaintiffs have opposed the instant motion as well as the JPML/s Conditional Transfer Order dated February 6 1 2013 (the "CTO'/) February 1 271 and have filed their motion to vacate the CTO on 2013, in compliance with the JPML/s briefing 1 Countrywide's motion to stay is directed to the following five cases: (i) Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Bank of A:mer)ca(;orp., et al., Case No. 13­ CV-00490 ("Royal Park I"); (ii) Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Bank of ~merica Corp., et al., Case No. 13 -CV-00491 ("Royal Park II") i (iii) Phoenix Light SF Limited, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., Case No. 13 CV­ 00492 ("Phoenix Light II"); (iv) Phoenix Light SF Limited. et al. v. Bank of America Corp . ¢ et al.. Case No. 13 CV-00494 ("Phoenix Light I") i and (v) Silver Elms CDO II Ltd. & Kleros Preferred Funding V PLC v. Bank of America (;orp . ¢ et al. 1 Case No. 13-CV-00501 ("Silver Elms"). 3 1 schedule. Under the JPML's procedures, Plaintiff's' motion to vacate will be fully submitted and considered at the next JPML hearing on May 30, 2013. Upon the facts and conclusions set forth below! the Defendants' motion is granted. I. Prior Proceedings and Facts aintiffs commenced these five actions in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by filing a Summons with Notice pursuant to N.Y. civ. Pract. L. & Rules § 305(b). On August IS, 2011, the JPML formed the Countrywide MBS MDL to centralize Countrywide MBS cases that "involve common legations that Countrywide questions of fact arising out of misrepresented to its investors origination pract credit quality of, 2004 to 2007. Lit ll for, and mortgage loans it originated from In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.- Backed Sec. ., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1380! 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2011). The JPML selected the Central District of California as the most convenient forum for the Countrywide MBS MDL court because the "Countrywide parties! witnesses! and documents are located 4 primarily in Calabasas, Agoura Hills or Westlake Village, California (within the Central 1384. strict of California)." Id. at The JPML selected the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer to oversee the Countrywide MBS MDL because "her knowledge of the factual issues in these cases developed from handling several cases over the past three years" Countrywide-related securit made her "well-positioned to preside over this MDL." the JPML/s initial trans order, final trans Id. Since orders have been issued in another 23 cases, including 12 cases then-pending in the Southern strict of New York. conditional trans In addition, a order has been issued for another seven cases (including the five sent cases) / all of which are related to each other and pending in the Southern District of New York. To date, 34 cases in all have been centralized in the Countrywide MBS MDL. On January 20, 2013, Countrywide removed the present cases from New York state court on bases of bankruptcy "related to" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. § § 1452(a), Edge Act 632/ and diversity jurisdiction See Royal Park I Park II (Dkt. No.1), Phoenix I (Dkt. No.1), Royal (Dkt. No.1), Phoenix __~___ (Dkt. No.1), and Silver Elms (Dkt. No.1). I_I 5 On January 29, 2013, Countrywide notified the JPML that these cases were potential " along" actions to the Countrywide MBS MDL, as both its counsel and were required to do. 29, 2013) See Notice of Related Actions (Jan. (Roeser Decl. Ex. F). On February 6, 2013, conditionally transferring MDL. aintiffs' counsel JPML issued CTO I five cases to the Countrywide MBS See JPML Conditional Transfer Order (CTO 19) Ex. A). After (Roeser Decl. aintiffs opposed the CTO, the JPML issued a briefing schedule which directed Plaintiffs to file their motion to vacate on or before February 27, 2013, with Countrywide Defendants' opposition due on or before March 20, 2012. 30, 2013 the JPML is schedul II. On May to hear Plaintiffs' motion. Discussion This Circuit Rout Pending JPML Action Grants Motions to S It is well settled that district courts have the power to stay proceedings. 248, 254, 57 S. ct. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936) (stating that "the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in 6 every court to control the disposition of the causes of its own docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.") "exercise [their] Courts considering stay applications must judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Id. at 254-55. In deciding whether a stay is appropriate private interests 1 "(1) the the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; burden on the defendants; (2) the private interests of and (3) the interests of the courts; the interests of persons not part s to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest." Simatele:x Manufactory Co. 912184 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2005) 1 Comfort Products No. 01-1044 (RJH) (HBP) 1 1 914 F. Supp. 1056 In addition l 1 (4) 1 (citing Ltd. v. 2005 WL v. 1058 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)). where a multi district litigation proceeding has been established courts have rout l motions pending rulings by the JPML. See e.g' l ly stayed Meyers v. Bayer AG, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1046-47 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (staying the question of whether there was federal question jurisdiction pending the results proceedings before the JPML seeking to 7 - ..... - .... ~ .. ~--~~~~-- transfer the case to another district); Aikins v. Microsoft Corp., No. A. 00-0242, 2000 WL 310391, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 24, 2000) (declining to dec a motion to remand because "the purpose of the JPML is to promote judicial economy and to prevent inconsistent rulings [and] [t] s case presents questions of fact similar to the other actions pending before the JPML."); Rivers v. Walt (C. D. Cal. 1997) sney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362 (stating that "a maj ori ty of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel because the judicial resources that are conserved."); Johnson v. AMR ., Nos. 95 C 7659 to 95 C 7664, 1996 WL 164415, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 1996) (staying any ruling on a jurisdictional motion until the MDL Panel ruled on the issue benef transfer and stating that "the s of transferring [the cases] to the MDL the body established by Congress specifically to ameliorate the duplicative litigation and the valuable waste of judic resources - are obvious.") In Ivy v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., the Second Circuit held that it is appropriate for the JPML to trans 8 cases in which remand motions are pending for resolution by the MDL court, stating that: [T]he j sdictional objections can be heard and resolved by a single court and reviewed at the appellate level in due course. Consistency as well as economy is thus served. We hold, therefore, that the MDL Panel has jurisdiction to transfer a case in which a jurisdictional objection is pending, that objection to be resolved by the transferee court. 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal citation omitted). Thus, when the jurisdictional issue ninvolves common questions of law and fact" with cases in a MDL litigation, then having nthe . heard and resolved by a single jurisdiction objection court . [promotes] [c]onsistency as well as economy." Id. Following Ivy, courts in this Circuit have exercised their discretion and deferred ruling on motions to remand in order to permit the MDL court selected by the JPML to decide such motions. See e.g., Debon~ v. Am. Home Prod. Corp., No. 04­ CV-3810, 2004 WL 2601177, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2004) (explaining that nit would be more prudent and more consistent with the concept of multidistrict litigation to send these cases to the MDL Court for its decision on the remand motions . [T]ransfer of these motions to the MDL Court will best keep with the spirit of multidistrict litigation.") 9 i Med. Soc' State of N.Y. v. Conn. Gen. Corp., 187 F. Supp. 2d 89, 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (finding that although a district court "remain[s] empowered to decide pending remand motions, II the "Second Circuit has . . . intimated that allowing the transferee court to resolve the jurisdictional question may be the preferable practice. II ) . This Court recently stayed motions to remand in three cases pending a decision by the JPML on transfer in what became In re: Facebook Inc. IPO Sec. and Deriv. Lit ., 12-MD 2389(RWS), because the remand motions raised common issues that should be decided by one court. See Hubuschman v. Zuckerberg, No. 3:12-CV-3366, slip op. at 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. II, 2012) 3367, (Roeser Decl. Ex. G) i Cole v. Zuckerberg, No. 3:12-CV­ ip op. at 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. II, 2012) Ex. G) i ~~__ v~.~Z~u~c~k_e_~~, No. (Roeser Decl. 3:12-CV-3642, slip op. at 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. II, 2012) (Roeser Decl. Ex. G). In addition, the JPML has repeatedly cited to Ivy in support of holding that cases with pending remand motions, including the Countrywide MBS cases, should be transferred to the MDL court for resolution of those motions. re: Countrywide Fin.~orp. In Mortg. -Backed Sec. Litig., MDL No. 2265, slip op. at 1 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 16, 2012) JPML Transfer Order at 1) See ---'--=--=­ (citing~, 10 Franklin Bank 901 F. 2d at 7, and holding that the "plaintiff can present its pending motion for remand to state court to the transferee judge . The transferee judge has resolved quickly remand motions in other Countrywide MBS cases before .") i In re: Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., MDL No. 2265, sl (J.P.M.L. Dec. 14, 2011) Order at 1) op. at *1 ted Western Bank JPML Transfer (same). Various Factors Weigh in Favor of A Stay In weighing the private interests of and burdens upon the non-moving and moving parties, the balance favors Defendants Countrywide and in staying the case. First, the Plaintiffs and their prosecution of the cases will not be 1 udiced by a stay. the present cases, like the 34 other cases centralized in the Countrywide MBS MDL, are "brought by investors in Countrywide mortgage backed securities" and are based on allegations that "Countrywide misrepresented to its investors origination practices for, and the credit quality of, the mortgage loans" that it originated from between 2004 through 2007. §ee Countrywide, 812 F. Supp. 2d at 1382. specifically, the summonses in More 1 five present actions assert that "[t]he offering materials issued by Defendants. 11 contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the underwriting standards used to issue the mortgage loans that were pooled together into the Offerings II Summons at 3; see also id. at 2 ("[T]he Of Royal Park I ring Materials also contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding key statistical characteristics of the mortgage loans underlying Securities, including the loans' loan-to-value ratios and combined loan-to-value ratios, as well as the percentage of owner occupied properties."). Due to similarity of the aintiffs' claims to those pending in the Countrywide MBS MDL, the JPML is 1 transfer the cases promptly. ly to See Franklin Bank JPML Trans Order at 2 (stating that "[t]rans r. will not delay unnecessarily the resolution of the pending remand motion. The trans ree judge has resolved quickly remand motions in other Countrywi MBS cases before her."); United Western Bank JPML Transfer Order at 1-2 (same). Plaintiffs contend that a stay pending the JPML's final transfer order "will clearly udice Plaintiffs by depriving them of their chosen forum for months." 10). (Pl. Opp. at However, the JPML is scheduled to hear Plaintiff's motion 12 on the next available date on May 30, 2013. Courts have determined that such short delays caused by staying proceedings until the JPML decides whether to transfer a case usually do not Sci. Prods. prejudice the plaintiff. Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., No. CIVACV-05-453DGT, 2005 WL 3555926, at *1 (stating that "any stay relative to the MDL Panel's decision will be atively short in duration and will not prejudice plaintiffs") i Med. Soc' 187 F. Supp. 2d at 92 of State of N.Y., (finding that "plaintiffs have not demonstrated any prejudice in the event of a stay except the slight delay in deciding the remand motion") i Rosenfeld v. Hartford re Ins. Co., No. 88-CV-2153, 1988 WL 49065, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 1988) the JPML because, (staying the case pending a decision by "[w]hile [plaintiffs] may suffer some initial delay, once the cases are coordinated . saved than was lost."). more time may well Accordingly, Plaintiffs has failed to show any significant prejudice they would suffer, beyond the slight delay pending the JPML decision. Plaintiffs so contend that the JPML transfer will deprive the Plaintiffs of "the benefit of recent authority in the Southern District of New York." Opp. at 10). They cite to no authority, however, for the proposition that a 13 plaintiff's desire to have the law of one forum apply to its case outweighs the efficiency and economy concerns that lead the JPML to form an MDL proceeding in another forum. In addition, this Court, like the court in United Western Bank "declines to speculate as to why Plaintiff prefers to obtain that ruling here and further declines to assume that Plaintiff will be prejudiced if it does not do so." Fed. tIns. . as Receiver for --------~-~---------~--~-----~------------- United Western Bank v. Count ., No. 11 CV-02268, --------------------------------~--------------~-- 2011 WL 4372915, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 19, 2011) ("United Western Bank") . In contrast, if the instant cases are not stayed pending a decision on transfer by the JPML, Defendants may face the risk inconsistent pre trial rulings on Plaintiff's motions to remand. Courts have expressed concerns that "any decisions made before the MDL Panel rules on the transfer application could be contradicted by another court or might need to be relitigated." Animal Sci. Prods., 2005 WL 3555926, at *1. Thus, "the risk of hardship to [defendant] of engaging in duplicative motion practice and discovery proceedings outweighs any prejudice that could potential inure to [plaintiff]. /I _N_o_r_t_h ____M~e_r_c_k~& C_o~.~~~, No. 05-CV-6475L, 2005 WL 2921638, at _v. __ *2 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2005). 14 As discussed above, there exists extensive overlap between the factual issues in the instant remand motions and in the cases before Judge Pfaelzer. Those other cases involved countrywide MBS backed by loans purchased from the same bankrupt originators 2 that are at issue here, pursuant to the same loan purchase agreements, involving the same proofs some instances, the same MBS. related in simi claim and in Courts have found cases to be circumstances. ~P~e~n~s~l~'o~e~n~f~o~n~d=s~.A~B~P v~.~C~o~u=n=t~~-=-=~_____-=~~., __ 10 (C.D. Cal. 2010). 447 B.R. 302, 309­ ("related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction existed based on the Purchase Agreement between CHL and AHM, and CHL's indemnification claims in the AHM bankruptcy proceeding) i Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. as Receiver for Franklin Bank, S.S.B. v. Countrywide Sec. Corp., No. 12 CV-03279-MRP (MANx), slip op. at 4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012) ("related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction existed based on purchase agreements between CHL and various bankrupt originators, including AHM, Alliance Bancorp, Alliance Bancorp, Inc.[ Cameron Financial Group, Inc., ComUnity Lending, 2 The Bankrupt Originators in these cases are 1st Republic Mortgage Bankers, Ace Mortgage Funding, LLC, Alliance Bancorp, Alliance Bancorp, Inc., American Home Mortgage Corporation, Cameron Financial Group, Inc., ComUnity Lending, Inc., Fieldstone Mortgage Company, First NLC Financial Services, LLC, GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Home Savings Mortgage, Homebanc Mortgage Corporation, Mountain View Mortgage Company, Prime Mortgage Financial, Inc., Premier Mortgage Funding, Inc., Residential Funding Company, and Southern Star Mortgage Corp. See Removal Notices at ~ 10. 15 Inc. t Fieldstone Mortgage CompanYt First NLC Financial Services, LLC t and Premier Mortgage Funding t Inc. and CHLts indemnification claims in their bankruptcy proceedings) Luther v. Count (Ex. J); No. 12 CV-05125 MRP (MANx) slip. op. at 5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2012) t ("related toll bankruptcy jurisdiction existed based on purchase agreements between CHL and Residential Funding Company and GMAC Mortgage t LLC and CHLts indemnification claims in their bankruptcy proceedings) . In sum t due to the overlap between both the legal and factual issues presented by the remand motions in the instant cases and the remand motions that Judge Pfaelzer has previously decided in other cases centralized in the MBS MDL. "Rather than have the potential for inconsistent decisions on the common issue [underlying mUltiple motions to remand] t th[ese] action[s] should be stayed pending action on the transfer to the MDL.II Mick v. GlaxoSmithKline t PLC t No. 08-CV­ 386, 2008 WL 4147555, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2008). In addition, courts in this Circuit have recognized that stays pending transfer "will also conserve judicial resources, one of the fundamental goals of multidistrict 16 litigation practice." North, 2005 WL 2921638, at *2, Animal Sci. Prods., 2005 WL 3555926, at *1 (~in granting the stay [pending JPML transfer] valuable judicial resources will be preserved.") i Med. Soc' (~[p]ermitting of State of N.Y., 187 F. Supp. 2d at 92 the MDL court to decide the [remand] issue would minimize the duplication of judicial resources.") Plaintiffs contend that ~[t]here will be no 'duplication of judicial resources'" because the remand motions will ~inevitably focus[]" on a ~fresh fact-specific inquiry" which either this Court or Judge Pfaelzer can undertake. Opp. at 2, 12). (Pl. While any court may be capable of deciding the issues, Judge Pfaelzer has already decided the same legal issues presented by Plaintiffs' remand motions and has familiarity with the remand issues raised in other Countrywide MBS cases, including Franklin Bank and United Western Bank. Judge Pfaelzer has previously examined the same indemnification agreements entered into by the same bankrupt third party lenders that originated from the same loans that backed the securities purchased by the Plaintiffs here. efficienc Thus, there are compelling s in allowing Judge Pfaelzer to resolve remand motions. 17 aintiffs' Indeed, other federal courts have found that efficiency would be served in staying MBS suits against Countrywide where plaintiffs were pressing for immediate resolution of their remand motions pending JPML transfer. ., United Western Bank, 2011 WL 4372915, at *2 proceedings pending transfer) it Ins. (staying ("United Western Bank"); Fed . . as Receiver for Franklin Bank v. Fin. Corp., No. 11-CV-04188, slip. op. (same). See, (S.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2012) Numerous courts in this Circuit have likewise recognized that "valuable judicial resources will be preserved" through a stay in such circumstances. at *2; see also Med. Soc' North, 2005 WL 2921638, of State of N'Y'I 187 F. Supp. 2d at 92 ("[p]ermitting the MDL court to decide the [remand] issue . would minimize the duplication of judicial resources") Debono I 2004 WL 2601177, at *1 i (deferring remand decision because "numerous motions to remand have been filed [in the MDL court], with more likely to come. ") . forming the MDL, "[c]entralization . As the JPML stated in will ensure that a single judge presides over these actions providing consistency, preventing conflicting rulings, and greatly reducing the duplicative expenditure of judicial resources. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 812 F. Supp. 2d at 1383. 18 In re Finally, The JPML's transfer orders in United Western Bank, 2011 WL 4372915 and Franklin Bank, No. ll-CV-04188, slip. op., suggest that it is likely that the JPML will transfer the instant five cases as all of the cases "involve[] common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2265, and. . transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. 2265, sl 1f op. at I, United Western Bank JPML Transfer, MDL No. (Doc. No. 280) i accord Franklin Bank JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 2265, slip op. at 1 (same) (Ex. E). Upon its review of these actions, the JPML also conditionally transferred the present cases, along with two others, to the MDL court because it appeared they "involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Central District of California." No. 384) 2 0 13 ) See MDL No. 2265, slip op. at 1 (Doc. (J.P.M.L. Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-19), Feb. 6, (Ex . A). In weighing the relevant factors and interests of the part s and the courts, a stay would be an appropriate exercise of this Court's discretion. A stay is not likely to prejudice or cause hardship to the Plaintiffs, as any delay resulting from a stay will likely be of short duration. 19 In addition, a stay will eliminate the risk of inconsistent rulings and conserve judicial resources. III. Conclusion Based upon the conclusions set forth above, the Defendants' motion to stay is granted. It is so ordered. New York, NY April I~ 2013 U.S.D.J. 20

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.