Opinion
DOCKET NO. 1118, 97-244, 96-8020
April 15, 2002
REMAND ORDER
Before the Panel are four motions, pursuant to Rule 7.6(f), R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 438 (2001), brought by Colonial Pacific Leasing Corp., n/k/a Waterview Resolution Corp. (Colonial), Leasing Partners, Inc. (LPI), Bell Atlantic TriCon Leasing Corp. (Bell Atlantic), Finova Capital Corp. (Finova), GreatAmerica Leasing Corp. (GreatAmerica), Amerus Leasing, Inc., Textron Financial Corp. and/or Avco Leasing, Inc. Movants seek to vacate the Panel's order conditionally remanding the 144 actions listed on the attached Schedule A from the Middle District of Florida to their respective transferor districts. Alternatively, Bell Atlantic and Finova identify eleven actions to which they state that they are still parties and ask the Panel to vacate the conditional remand order insofar as it applies to the claims against them in those eleven actions (and thus allowing those claims to remain in the transferee district for continued Section 1407 proceedings). Finally, Colonial, LPI and GreatAmerica also request the Panel to reassign this litigation to another judge from the Middle District of Florida transferee district. All responding plaintiffs support Section 1407 remand.
The Panel's conditional remand order pertained to an additional twelve actions that subsequently were dismissed and closed in the transferee district by the transferee judge in separate orders signed on March 12, 2002. Accordingly, the conditional remand order insofar as it pertained to those twelve actions has been vacated, and the question of Section 1407 remand with respect to those actions is now moot.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that remand of these actions is appropriate at this time. The following quotation from an earlier Panel opinion is very instructive:
The Panel's Rules of Procedure provide that the Panel shall consider the question of remand on the motion of any party, on the suggestion of the transferee court or on the Panel's own initiative. Rule [7.6(c)], R.P.J.P.M.L., [199] F.R.D. [425, 437 (2001)]. In considering the question of remand, the Panel has consistently given great weight to the transferee judge's determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is appropriate because the transferee judge, after all, supervises the day-to-day pretrial proceedings. See, e.g., In re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation, 407 F. Supp. 254, 256 (J.P.M.L. 1976). The transferee judge's notice of suggestion of remand to the Panel is obviously an indication that he perceives his role under Section 1407 to have ended. In re Air Crash Disaster Near Dayton, Ohio, on March 9, 1967, 386 F. Supp. 908, 909 (J.P.M.L. 1975).
In re Holiday Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation, 433 F. Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977). In the matter now before us, the transferee judge has transmitted to the Panel a suggestion of remand reflecting his determination that he has completed his task under Section 1407 as transferee judge with respect to these MDL-1118 actions. We respect and adopt that conclusion and therefore will order remand of the actions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions on the attached Schedule A are hereby remanded from the Middle District of Florida to their respective transferor districts.