In re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

Full title: IN RE WORLDCOM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. JIM BARNETT, et al…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jul 23, 2003

MASTER FILE 02 Civ. 3288 (DLC), 03 Civ. 2840, 03 Civ. 3591, 03 Civ. 3593, 03 Civ. 3594, 03 Civ. 3595, 03 Civ. 3597, 03 Civ. 3598, 03 Civ. 3599 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 23, 2003)

Opinion

MASTER FILE 02 Civ. 3288 (DLC), 03 Civ. 2840, 03 Civ. 3591, 03 Civ. 3593, 03 Civ. 3594, 03 Civ. 3595, 03 Civ. 3597, 03 Civ. 3598, 03 Civ. 3599.

July 23, 2003.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER

DENISE COTE, District Judge

Plaintiffs in eight actions originally filed in state courts in Mississippi have moved in response to the June 11, 2003 Order ("June 11 Order") in the In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation ("Securities Litigation") to show cause why their actions should be remanded to those state courts. The eight actions are among sixteen virtually identical actions filed in Mississippi state courts to assert state law claims arising from alleged misrepresentations concerning WorldCom's financial condition. All sixteen such actions have been removed to federal court. The eight actions were transferred to this Court by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation between May 29, 2003 and June 3, 2003.

The June 11 Order provided an opportunity for actions that appeared on this Court's docket after March 3, 2003 to show cause why prior opinions in this consolidated securities action denying remand motions do not also require denial of their pending motions to remand. See In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 293 B.R. 308 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2003); In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., Nos. 02 Civ. 3288, 03 Civ. 167, 03 Civ. 338, 03 Civ. 998 (DLC), 2003 WL 21031974 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2003). The July 1, 2003 motion in these eight Mississippi actions, filed in response to the June 11 Order, consists of a one and a half page outline of legal issues and a statement that it is incorporating the arguments set forth in papers submitted while the actions were pending in Mississippi. Plaintiffs in the eight actions do not make any attempt to explain why the analysis in this Court's prior opinions should not control their pending remand motions.

Accordingly, it is hereby,

ORDERED that the pending remand motions in the eight Mississippi actions, Nos. 03 Civ. 2840, 03 Civ. 3591, 03 Civ. 3593, 03 Civ. 3594, 03 Civ. 3595, 03 Civ. 3597, 03 Civ. 3598, and 03 Civ. 3599, are denied.

SO ORDERED.