From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. Sales Prac. Litig

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi
Aug 9, 2002
Docket No. 1091, C.A. No. 5:02-115 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 9, 2002)

Opinion

Docket No. 1091, C.A. No. 5:02-115

August 9, 2002

BEFORE WM. TERRELL HODGES, CHAIRMAN, JOHN F. KEENAN MOREY L. SEAR, BRUCE M. SELYA, JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSEN AND J. FREDERICK MOTZ, JUDGES OF THE PANEL

Judge Sear took no part in the decision of this matter.


TRANSFER ORDER


Before the Panel is a motion brought, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), by plaintiffs in a Southern District of Mississippi action (Carter) requesting the Panel to vacate its order conditionally transferring Carter to the Western District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in the centralized pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket before Judge Donetta W. Ambrose. Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife) supports transfer of the action.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Carter involves common questions of fact with actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania, and that transfer of Carter to that district for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Panel is persuaded that transfer of Carter is appropriate for reasons expressed by the Panel in its original order directing centralization in this docket. The Panel held that the Western District of Pennsylvania was the proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving allegations that deceptive life insurance sales practices occurred or were encouraged as part of MetLife schemes or courses of conduct. See In re Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation, MDL-1091 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 20, 1996) (unpublished order).

Plaintiffs premise much of their opposition to transfer on the pendency in Carter of a motion to remand to state court, and on their argument that federal jurisdiction is lacking in Carter. We note, however, that their remand motion can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F. Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Billy C. Carter, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., S.D. Mississippi, C.A. No. 5:02-115, is transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there.


Summaries of

In re Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. Sales Prac. Litig

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi
Aug 9, 2002
Docket No. 1091, C.A. No. 5:02-115 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 9, 2002)
Case details for

In re Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. Sales Prac. Litig

Case Details

Full title:IN RE METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi

Date published: Aug 9, 2002

Citations

Docket No. 1091, C.A. No. 5:02-115 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 9, 2002)

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. v. Kansas City Power Light Co.

Hence it was unnecessary for the answer to contain either a general or specific denial. [Carter et al. v.…