In re: Class Action Settlement Administration Litigation

Background

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered a request under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize five actions pending in four federal districts. The actions, listed in Schedule A, were filed in the Northern District of California, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of New York, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The parties also identified five related actions that could later be added as tag-along actions.

The cases concern allegations that three settlement claims administrators—Angeion, Epiq, and JND—diverted settlement deposits to Huntington and Western Alliance in exchange for financial benefits, including interest and investment earnings. The plaintiffs seek to represent substantially similar nationwide classes and assert claims under federal antitrust law, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law.

Positions and Analysis

The plaintiffs supported centralization but disagreed about where the cases should be transferred. The plaintiffs in the Baker action requested centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York. Other plaintiffs supported centralization in the Northern District of California. Six defendants supported centralization of all claims in the Southern District of New York. Kroll Settlement Administration LLC took no position on centralization but opposed transfer to the Southern District of Florida.

Some plaintiffs asked the Panel to separate and remand the “digital payment kickback” allegations in the Baker action. Those allegations concern claims that Tremendous, Blackhawk Network Holdings, and Digital Settlement Technologies induced claims administrators to use their digital-payment platforms by sharing revenue from unredeemed or unclaimed payment cards.

The Panel concluded that separating those allegations was not warranted. It found that the digital-payment allegations involved the same claims-administrator defendants and many of the same underlying settlements as the bank-related allegations. Separation could require defendants and witnesses to participate in multiple districts and could cause duplicative discovery and scheduling conflicts. The Panel also stated that separation and remand might not be practicable because the claims were not necessarily separate claims directed only at the digital-payment defendants or allegations.

Disposition

The Panel found common factual questions and concluded that centralization would promote convenience, efficient litigation, consistent pretrial rulings, and conservation of resources. It selected the District of the District of Columbia as the transferee district, noting that the district had capacity and resources and that Judge John D. Bates had experience with class actions and multidistrict litigation.

The order transferred the actions listed on Schedule A to the District of the District of Columbia and, with that court’s consent, assigned them to the Honorable John D. Bates for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The opinion identifies the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation as issuing the order, while the supplied case information lists Judge Jacquelyn Corley.