7th Circuit decides MDL appeal question

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeal wants each federal judge handling multi-district litigation to have the flexibility to choose between sending parts of unresolved cases back to the original courts or keep those in one jurisdiction, once a final district-level decision has been made and the time for appeal arrives.

In what it describes as an “important question concerning the management of appeals in multi-district litigation” under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the federal appellate panel upheld a decision made initially by U.S. Judge Robert Miller in the Northern District of Indiana and affirmed by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The appellate decision came in FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. v. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, No.11-2438.

This appeal involves Miller’s handling of a line of cases involving FedEx drivers nationwide who were in a dispute with the worldwide shipping company about whether they were independent contractors or employees entitled to back pay and full benefits. More than 70 cases from federal courts nationwide were transferred to Miller’s jurisdiction in South Bend starting in 2005 and consolidated into one MDL case for pre-trial proceedings. Last year, the Indiana federal judge ruled in the company’s favor on most cases and found that the FedEx drivers were independent contractors, and he threw out the claims that FedEx had misidentified drivers’ employment status and owed them back pay, overtime and other damages.

Miller’s summary judgment decisions resolved all of the claims in 22 of the still-pending MDL cases at the time, and those final judgments are being appealed to the 7th Circuit. But other claims remained in 12 pending MDL cases that Miller presided over, and those cases didn’t have a final appealable judgment.

So, Miller faced a choice: issue partial final judgments in those unresolved 12 cases to allow those parties to file appeals in the 7th Circuit where the other claims are being addressed, or follow the usual course of action and send those cases back to the jurisdictions where they originated so that any final judgments and appeals would flow through those Circuits. Choosing one option meant the courts lose the advantages of the other option, and the parties in this FedEx case disagreed on their preferences.

The Indiana judge remanded the cases and recommended that the JPML – having final authority over the question – do the same. The national panel agreed with Miller, who has been a member of the JPML in the past.

FedEx disagreed and asked the 7th Circuit to review that decision and issue a writ of mandamus requiring the cases be consolidated for appeal in the 7th Circuit. The 7th Circuit decided to leave the decision up to the federal judge presiding over the MDL case.

“The choice between these two methods of case management is best left to the transferee court and JPML, without trying to impose a rigid rule for all cases and circumstances,” Judge David Hamilton wrote for the panel that included Judges Daniel Manion and Diane Sykes. “The choice between these two methods of case management is an archetype for a discretionary judgment, and the transferee court and the JPML are in the best positions to make that judgment.”


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."