The following recent developments at the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation provide some practical pointers when facing litigation in multiple jurisdictions.
MDL Decision to Watch: Counting Your Chickens
Earlier this month, the Panel denied a motion to create an MDL proceeding for two actions arising from common factual questions relating to allegations that defendants agreed not to compete for the services of farmers who raise broiler chickens under contracts with chicken processors (known as "Broiler Grow-Out Services"). Noting that where "a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden," the Panel denied the motion. The Panel found that it was "eminently feasible" to utilize "alternatives to centralization, such as informal cooperation among the relatively few involved attorneys and coordination among the involved courts."
Interestingly, the Panel observed that the claims at issue had originally been brought as a single action, but after certain defendants were dismissed on personal-jurisdiction and venue grounds, a second action in a different federal district was filed.
»> In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 2838)
MDL Practice Pointer
Although nothing precludes the filing of an MDL motion with the bare minimum of two federal actions pending in two different federal districts, creating an MDL with such a minimal number of actions is a high hurdle to clear. Be prepared to show why informal coordination is not an option. But if a limited number of counsel are involved (as is likely), don't count your MDL chickens before they are hatched.
MDLs at a Glance
» See the pending MDL dockets by district.
» Read Alan's most recent Law360 "And Now a Word from the Panel" article.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.