Opinion
Docket No. 1374, C.A. No. 1:00-9412, (C.D. California, C.A. No. 2:00-6194)
August 8, 2002
ORDER DENYING REMAND
Before the Panel is a motion for remand brought, pursuant to Rule 7.6, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 436-38 (2001), by plaintiffs in six actions previously transferred from the Central or Southern District of California to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the MDL- 1374 centralized pretrial proceedings occurring before Judge Michael B. Mukasey. Plaintiffs seek remand of each action to its respective California transferor district. Responding defendant Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. opposes Section 1407 remand.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that remand of the actions is not appropriate at this time. The following quotation from an earlier Panel opinion is very instructive for situations such as this, where no recommendation of remand has been made to the Panel by the transferee judge:
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). Absent a notice of suggestion of remand from the transferee judge to the Panel, any party advocating remand before the Panel bears a strong burden of persuasion. We rule that movants have not met this burden here and that the motion for remand is premature.
In re Holiday Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation, 433 F. Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977).
Judge Mukasey, in his capacity as transferee judge, has become thoroughly familiar with the issues in this complex docket involving claims rooted in insurance policies issued during the Nazi era. We note, for example, that currently there are fully briefed, potentially dispositive pretrial motions pending before him and awaiting his decision in these six actions. We find that movants, having failed to persuade Judge Mukasey that remand of their actions is appropriate at this time, have also failed to convince us that we should order remand in the absence of a suggestion of remand from Judge Mukasey. Accordingly, we will deny remand.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for Section 1407 remand of the six actions is denied.