ILNews

Indiana has received 14 multidistrict litigation actions over four decades

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It began with a mid-air plane collision over Shelby County in 1969. That deadly aviation action symbolized Indiana’s introduction to multidistrict litigation.

That crash that killed 83 people – the state’s most deadly plane collision – set the stage for how complex litigation involving multiple parties in varying locations would be handled in federal courts in Indiana. Only an additional dozen or so have come onto the state’s docket in the past four decades. Indiana hasn’t broken any records with its caseload or case type, but MDLs here have included everything from train derailments, COBRA tax shelters, fiber optic cable line being installed along railroad right of ways, tire recalls, and FedEx delivery driver claims of wage discrimination.

“The system is crucial for the efficient handling of large litigation, particularly class action litigation that’s filed in various locations,” said Ed Harris, a partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister in Indianapolis who has been handling this type of litigation since the 1970s.

“Indiana has not been particularly different than it has been around the rest of the country, and it’s probably been used more and more as time has gone on, as plaintiff counsel have gotten more sophisticated about how it can be used,” Harris said. “But I’ve not really studied this point. Without consolidation, it would be a very chaotic situation with various courts handling what is essentially the same case very differently.”

A Bird’s Eye View

Since Congress created the 28 U.S.C. 1407 process in 1968 to relieve federal court backlog and streamline the pretrial proceedings of similar cases into one action, the Judicial Panel on MDL reports that nearly 350,000 actions had been subjected to that law through Sept. 30, 2010, more than 223,000 actions had been transferred into centralized courts.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the panel ruled annually on roughly 30 to 50 motions for centralization and that has more than doubled since then, particularly in the past decade where more than 100 motions have been filed. In total, 18 percent of the federal courts’ docket is MDL, figures show.

The 7th Circuit has seen about 4,000 actions transferred into its courts through the years, with the Southern District of Indiana receiving 1,070 cases and the Northern District of Indiana receiving 73. As in most jurisdictions, the Indiana courts saw significantly more cases transferred outside the state.

“We don’t have as many here as you might think, with Lilly and those pharmaceutical (companies) that might want it here because it’s more central and more witnesses are here,” said U.S. Judge Robert Miller in the Northern District of Indiana, who is one of only two Hoosier judges who’ve sat on the MDL panel that overviews and assigns litigation. “We try to sprinkle most of them across the dockets to locations where there’s already a constituent case on the docket, so this would add incrementally to what the judge already has.”

Financial cases in the past few years involving hedge funds and Ponzi schemes tend to drift toward the Southern District of New York where Wall Street is located, while the software and computer cases frequently get centralized in the Northern District of California that includes Silicon Valley, Judge Miller said. Those two districts make up about 25 percent of the MDL caseload, while the rest are just scattered nationwide, he said.

Some of that may be tied to the Southern District of Indiana’s having one of the highest caseloads in the country, keeping the amount of mass tort litigation lower in this state, he said.

Ten Indiana District judges through the years have had their hands touch MDL actions, including Judges John Tinder and David Hamilton from the Southern District who’ve since been elevated to the 7th Circuit. Judge Tinder handled an orthopaedic implant device antitrust action that included four cases through 2008, while Judge Hamilton still presides over the AT&T Corp. fiber-optic cable installation litigation that has involved 43 cases, with 10 remaining pending as of November.

The late U.S. Judge Cale Holder in the Southern District handled the first-ever MDL that followed the 1969 airplane collision near Fairland. A total 126 cases were part of that litigation, with 68 transferred into Indiana and 58 transferred out before it was terminated in 1972.

Largest and ongoing

Most significantly, the largest MDL action in Indiana has been the Bridgestone Firestone tire recall litigation, which came before Judge Sarah Evans Barker about a decade ago. It arose out of allegations that a design defect in Ford Explorer tires caused the treads to separate prematurely and lead to vehicle rollovers. Plaintiffs came from all over the U.S. and foreign countries and culminated in about 850 cases to date. Three cases remain ongoing before Judge Barker, according to national statistics and the local court clerk’s office.
 

Firestone sign on Delaware Street The largest multidistrict litigation action in Indiana has involved the Bridgestone/Firestone tire recall. A few remain ongoing in the Southern District of Indiana. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

When assigned the task of presiding over the Bridgestone/Firestone litigation, Judge Barker served notice at the outset that things were going to move forward as quickly as possible in the complex case. When assigned the MDL, she brought in U.S. Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields, who has since retired but handled much of the discovery aspects and settlements at the time.

Second in size of those MDLs pending is one before Judge Miller in the Northern District. In Re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc Employment Practices Litigation, MDL 1700, No. 3:05-MD-527 is a series of about 72 cases filed by drivers in multiple states including Indiana disputing how the delivery company classified them as “independent contractors” and contended they were due back pay and benefits that employees receive.

Though the first individual FedEx cases addressing these issues began surfacing in 2001, the line of litigation obtained MDL centralization in 2005 and Judge Miller has been ruling on various nuances involved through the years. He largely granted class certification to many of the cases in March 2008, and some of the more significant happenings since then have occurred in the past year.

Judge Miller ruled in December in favor of FedEx, finding that the drivers are independent contractors in 20 of the 28 remaining group lawsuits and ruling in FedEx’s favor on some claims in the other eight class-action cases. Many drivers have since appealed to the 7th Circuit where the litigation remains pending.

Judge Miller wrote in his ruling that the “nationwide character” of this litigation makes it a truly unique set of cases, unlike anything that has appeared before him or in the cases cited by the parties.

This was Judge Miller’s first MDL. Judge Miller said he got the case because of his service on the MDL panel, a common practice for those assigning the cases.

“Generally, we want to get a case because that gives us a little more insight into some of the decision-making that trial judges will have before them on these types of cases,” he said. “The tradition is that if they don’t have one, they will get one very soon.”

Often, attorneys arguing about centralized venues will point out locales that are easier to travel to than a drive from the airport to court in New York, he said. But that didn’t come up when deciding that the FedEx case would be located in South Bend, he recalls.
List of multidistrict litigation actions over four decades
“We had a constituent case here and I needed a case,” he said. “FedEx couldn’t really argue that any place was tough to get to… that all played into it.”

As one of the seven Article III judges serving on the MDL panel for a seven-year term through this past October, he is only the second person from Indiana to sit in that position. The other was the late U.S. Judge S. Hugh Dillin in the Southern District.

In handling the MDL actions on the bench, Judge Miller said it’s an interesting experience that’s different from the regular cases before a judge.

“It’s a whole different set of challenges than you’re used to, but it’s a lot of fun,” he said. “You have exposure to so many different lawyers and you’re touching cases that go coast-to-coast, maybe even beyond that. The process is still set up the regular way of litigation funneling toward trial and most won’t get there.”

From the attorneys’ perspectives, longtime lawyers involved in these types of cases describe MDL as being an important part of the overall handling of large litigation actions in the federal judiciary.

Attorney Mark Merkle at Krieg DeVault in Indianapolis serves as local counsel for Firestone, and in that role he’s participated in more than 500 mediations with hundreds of different attorneys on those cases and coordinated filings in each of the individual suits. In the early part of the decade, Merkle said he focused about 80 percent of his time on MDL actions. Recently, he has also been involved in the Mattel lead litigation pending in California and one of his Indiana cases was transferred into that jurisdiction.

“The differences in preparation is that you have to become familiar enough with each case to add value, but not immerse yourself in each case as to add another layer of cost and complexity,” he said, adding that an MDL lawyer must recognize those “trouble” cases and be able to get more involved in those.

In his MDL cases, Merkle said he’d spend a lot of time providing insight into how the court would react to various motions and said the judges look to local counsel as an intermediary with out-of-state lawyers.

“Often, I felt I was working for the court, assisting as traffic cop to cut down on misfilings, unnecessary motions, and temper arguments that would challenge the civility standard of our court,” he said. “But it’s all part of a bigger picture.”

Future of MDL

Presiding Judge John Heyburn II wonders whether a point in time arrives when MDL outlives its statutory usefulness and inclusion of a new tag-along action is counterproductive to the overall centralization. Fewer cases are going to verdict, and more universal settlements rather than individual resolutions are being reached. That is something the MDL panel might have to examine in coming years.

Judge Miller isn’t sure what’s ahead, but he thinks that lawyers and the general public are still largely unfamiliar with MDL. Some of the big cases have put the panel on the radar, and he said that one of the trends he sees is a way to spot what might ultimately get tagged for centralization.

“Follow the headlines,” he said. “It seems that whatever you see in the news, whether it’s a Toyota recall or BP oil spill, you wait about three or four months and then it’s on your docket. It’s like clockwork.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Building social-media presence is inevitable for Law Firms. These tips are very useful to strengthen social media presence. Thank you for sharing this. NirwanLawCorp.com.

  2. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  3. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  4. We are a Finance Industry Company professionals with over 15 Years Experience and a focus on providing Bank Guarantee and Standby Letter of Credit from some of the World Top 25 Prime Banks primarily from Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC,Credit Suisse e.t.c. FEATURES: Amounts from $1 million to 5 Billion+ Euro’s or US Dollars Great Attorney Trust Account Protection Delivered via MT760, MT799 and MT103 Swift with Full Bank Responsibility Brokers Always Protected Purchase Instrument of BG/SBLC : 32%+2% Min Face Value cut = EUR/USD 1M-5B Lease Instrument of BG/SBLC : 4%+2% Min Face Value cut = EUR/USD 1M-5B Interested Agents/Brokers, Investors and Individual proposing international project funding should contact us for directives.We will be glad to share our working procedures with you upon request. We Facilitate Bank instruments SBLC for Lease and Purchase. Whether you are a new startup, medium or large establishment that needs a financial solution to fund/get your project off the ground or business looking for extra capital to expand your operation,our company renders credible and trusted bank guarantee provider who are willing to fund and give financing solutions that suits your specific business needs. We help you secure and issue sblc and bank guarantee for your trade, projects and investment from top AA rated world Banks like HSBC, Barclays, Dutch Ing Bank, Llyods e.t.c because that’s the best and safest strategy for our clients.e.t.c DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS 1. Instrument: Funds backed Bank Guarantee(BG) ICC-600 2. Currency : USD/EURO 3. Age of Issue: Fresh Cut 4. Term: One year and One day 5. Contract Amount: United State Dollars/Euros (Buyers Face Value) 6. Price : Buy:32%+1, Lease: 4%+2 7. Subsequent tranches: To be mutually agreed between both parties 8. Issuing Bank: Top RATED world banks like HSBC, Barclays, ING Dutch Bank, Llyods e.t.c 9. Delivery Term: Pre advise MT199 or MT799 first. Followed By SWIFT MT760 10. Payment Term: MT799 & Settlement via MT103 11. Hard Copy: By Bank Bonded Courier Interested Agents,Brokers, Investors and Individual proposing international project funding should contact us for directives.We will be glad to share our working procedures with you upon request. Name:Richardson McAnthony Contact Mail : intertekfinance@gmail.com

  5. Affordable Loan Offer (ericloanfinance@hotmail.com) NEED A LOAN?Sometime i really wanna help those in a financial problems.i was wondering why some people talks about inability to get a loan from a bank/company. have you guys ever try Eric Benson lending service.it cost dollars to loan from their company. my aunty from USA,just got a home loan from Eric Benson Lending banking card service.and they gave her a loan of 8,000,000 USD. they give out loan from 100,000 USD - 100,000,000 USD. try it yourself and testimony. have a great day as you try.Kiss & Hug. Contact E-mail: ericloanfinance@hotmail.com

ADVERTISEMENT