Intuit Inc. v. Visa Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-01234
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Intuit Inc. v. Visa Inc., Judge Chen’s order transferred the action to New York for coordinated pretrial proceedings in payment-card antitrust litigation.
Intuit Inc. et al. and Visa Inc. et al., whose action was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
What happened
Intuit Inc. et al. v. Visa Inc. et al. was listed as a related action in multidistrict litigation about payment-card interchange fees and merchant discounts.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found that the action involved factual questions shared with cases already transferred to the Eastern District of New York. It ordered the action transferred there for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The transfer was assigned to Judge Margo K. Brodie in the Eastern District of New York. The supplied case information identifies Judge Edward Chen, although the opinion text is a Judicial Panel transfer order and does not identify him as its author.
The detailed version
- Intuit Inc. v. Visa Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-01234
- Edward Chen
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued Conditional Transfer Order 33 in the multidistrict litigation concerning payment-card interchange fees and merchant discount antitrust claims. The schedule identified the action as Intuit Inc. et al. v. Visa Inc. et al., No. 21-01234, from the Northern District of California.
Transfer ruling
The Panel stated that the action appeared to involve factual questions common to actions previously transferred to the Eastern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, it ordered the scheduled action transferred to the Eastern District of New York and assigned it, with that court’s consent, to Judge Margo K. Brodie.
The order initially provided for a seven-day stay before becoming effective and stated that the stay would continue if a party filed an opposition. It then stated that no objection was pending and that the stay was lifted.
Disposition and judge information
The action was transferred to the Eastern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The supplied case information identifies Edward Chen as the judge, but the opinion text is a Judicial Panel order and identifies Margo K. Brodie as the judge to whom the transferred actions were assigned; it does not identify Edward Chen as the author.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.