Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re Midpoint Development, LLC, Litigation, MDL-1637 (2004)

Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Number: MDL-1637 Visitors: 9
Judges: Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chairman, John F. Keenan, D. Lowell Jensen, J. Frederick Motz, Robert L. Miller, Jr., Kathryn H. Vratil and David R. Hansen, Judges of the Panel
Filed: Oct. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 341 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (2004) In re MIDPOINT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, LITIGATION No. MDL-1637. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. October 18, 2004. *1354 Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL and DAVID R. HANSEN, Judges of the Panel. ORDER DENYING TRANSFER WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman. This litigation currently consists of the five actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in three districts
More
341 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (2004)

In re MIDPOINT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, LITIGATION

No. MDL-1637.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

October 18, 2004.

*1354 Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL and DAVID R. HANSEN, Judges of the Panel.

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of the five actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in three districts as follows: two actions each in the Northern District of Mississippi and the Western District of Oklahoma and one action in the Northern District of Texas. Meridith R. Brown and related entities[1] move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Western District of Oklahoma. Responding party Lucien Crosland supports Section 1407 centralization, but suggests either the Northern District of Texas or the Northern District of Mississippi as transferee district. All other responding parties oppose transfer.[2]

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel is not persuaded that these actions share sufficient common questions of fact to warrant Section 1407 transfer and that centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the actions listed on Schedule A is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL-1637 — In re Midpoint Development, LLC, Litigation

Northern District of Mississippi

Meridith Brown, et al. v. Supertrail Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al., Bky. Advy. No. 1:02-1265

Meridith Brown, et al. v. Supertrail Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al., Bky. Advy. No. 1:02-1283

Western District of Oklahoma

Midpoint Construction, Inc. v. Lucien B. Crosland, et al., C.A. No. 5:02-904

Judy Circo, etc. v. Bayhills Development Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:03-1292

Northern District of Texas

Meridith Brown, et al. v. Toile, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-1405

NOTES

[1] Midpoint Construction, Inc.; Midpoint Development, L.L.C.; Bay Hills Development Company, Inc.; Decatur Asset Management, L.L.C.; Offshore Island Investment, Inc.; Belle Isle Consulting, Inc.; and Wildewood Executive Park, Inc.

[2] Supertrail Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Craig Geno; Mustafa Atac; the 1990 Grieser Trust; and Claudia Holliman.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer