Full text
Quevedo v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION MDL No. 2286
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER
The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (a), is appropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s). IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the Southern District of California with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded.
Inasmuch as no objection is FOR THE PANEL: pending at this time, the stay is lifted. Lf AU oe Dec 01, 2020 ( CUNTED SES John W. Nichols MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Clerk of the Panel
IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION MDL No. 2286
SCHEDULE FOR CRO
TRANSFEREE TRANSFEROR
DISTDIV. C.A.NO. DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION
CAS 3 16−03025 ALN 7 16−01353 Eaton et al v. Midland Credit Management Inc CAS 3 17−01242 ALN 7 17−00865 Prince v. Midland Funding LLC Natalie Huffman et al v. Midland Credit CAS 3 17−01015 CAC 2 17−01534 Managment, Inc. CAS 3 14−00381 CAE 1 13−01904 Quevedo v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 13−02882 CAE 2 13−02008 Roy v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 13−02010 CAN 3 13−00757 Doherty v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00939 FLM 3 15−00202 Farley v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 14−00382 FLM 6 14−00024 Cooper v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 14−01337 FLM 6 14−00380 Jones v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 14−02881 FLM 6 14−01856 Love v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00503 FLM 6 15−00108 Hall v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. Rumbough v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. CAS 3 15−02943 FLM 6 15−01878 et al Moya et al v. Midland Credit Management, CAS 3 14−02467 FLM 8 14−00845 Inc. CAS 3 14−01559 FLM 8 14−01349 Gruver v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 14−01960 FLM 8 14−01806 Valliere v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00170 FLM 8 14−02907 Howard v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. Permenter v. Midland Credit Management, CAS 3 15−01644 FLM 8 15−01536 Inc. CAS 3 17−00504 FLM 8 17−00444 Lefler v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 17−00975 FLM 8 17−00736 Little v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 18−00019 FLM 8 17−02966 Christian v. Credit One Bank N.A. et al Lauderdale v. Midland Credit Management, CAS 3 18−00483 FLM 8 17−02967 Inc. CAS 3 15−01051 FLN 1 15−00054 Cray v. Midland Credit Management Inc CAS 3 13−01517 FLS 0 12−62370 Ferdarko v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 14−00240 FLS 0 13−62713 Akers v. Midland Funding, LLC et al CAS 3 14−00242 FLS 0 13−62715 Santamaria v. Midland Funding, LLC et al Ramcharitar et al v. Midland Credit CAS 3 17−00976 FLS 0 17−60506 Management, Inc. CAS 3 17−02522 FLS 0 17−62138 Negroni vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 13−01519 FLS 2 13−14072 Manasse v. Midland Funding LLC et al Gilmore v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 14−00861 GAN 1 14−00351 et al CAS 3 15−01712 ILN 1 15−06109 Arora v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al DOTSON v. MIDLAND CREDIT CAS 3 14−01760 INS 1 14−00826
MANAGEMENT, INC.
CAS 3 14−01502 MIE 2 14−11783 Bretz v. Midland Credit Management Inc CAS 3 14−01386 MIE 2 14−12083 Smith et al v. Midland Funding, LLC et al CAS 3 15−02477 MN 0 15−03800 Johnson v. Encore Capital Group, Inc. et al CAS 3 15−02282 MOE 4 15−00030 Basham v. Midland Funding, LLC et al CAS 3 16−01362 MOW 4 16−00319 Cockman v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. Weisberger v. Midland Credit Management, CAS 3 14−01336 NJ 3 14−01817 Inc. Benarroch v. Midland Credit Management, CAS 3 14−01893 NJ 3 14−02880 Inc. CAS 3 13−01478 NYN 5 13−00050 Goetz v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. McDonald v. Midland Credit Management, CAS 3 14−00689 NYW 1 14−00089 Inc. CAS 3 14−02151 NYW 1 14−00668 Shearer v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00222 NYW 1 15−00042 Glover v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 14−01355 NYW 6 14−06117 Wentworth v. Midland Funding LLC CAS 3 14−02909 NYW 6 14−06579 King v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−01977 NYW 6 16−06484 Pugh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 17−00605 OR 3 16−02329 Spencer v. Midland Funding LLC et al CAS 3 14−01950 PAE 2 14−02075 Hill v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 17−00471 PAE 2 17−00352 Boyd et al v. Midland Funding LLC et al CAS 3 17−00473 PAE 2 17−00359 Miller et al v. Midland Funding LLC et al CAS 3 17−00472 PAE 2 17−00411 Colacchia et al v. Midland Funding LLC et al CAS 3 17−00475 PAE 2 17−00666 Duval v. Midland Funding LLC et al CAS 3 17−00476 PAE 2 17−00667 Cruz v. Midland Funding LLC et al CAS 3 17−00482 PAE 2 17−00668 Avesian v. Midland Funding LLC et al CAS 3 17−00479 PAE 2 17−00669 Morris v. Midland Funding LLC et al CAS 3 17−00483 PAE 2 17−00670 Richino−Brown v. Midland Funding LLC et al Covington v. Midland Credit Management, CAS 3 17−00784 TNW 2 17−02160 Inc. CAS 3 15−00773 TXE 4 14−00414 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00774 TXE 4 14−00481 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00775 TXE 4 14−00578 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00776 TXE 4 14−00841 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00777 TXE 4 14−00843 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00783 TXE 4 15−00045 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00785 TXE 4 15−00048 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00723 TXE 4 15−00135 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00724 TXE 4 15−00136 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00725 TXE 4 15−00138 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00726 TXE 4 15−00139 Mack V Midland Credit Management CAS 3 15−00728 TXE 4 15−00140 Mack V Midland Credit Management CAS 3 15−00729 TXE 4 15−00141 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01790 TXE 4 15−00251 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01796 TXE 4 15−00252 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01797 TXE 4 15−00306 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01798 TXE 4 15−00309 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01799 TXE 4 15−00317 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01801 TXE 4 15−00318 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01803 TXE 4 15−00329 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01805 TXE 4 15−00330 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01807 TXE 4 15−00443 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01806 TXE 4 15−00444 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01808 TXE 4 15−00466 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01809 TXE 4 15−00467 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01810 TXE 4 15−00479 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−01811 TXE 4 15−00481 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02226 TXE 4 15−00607 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02228 TXE 4 15−00610 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02229 TXE 4 15−00611 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02231 TXE 4 15−00612 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02250 TXE 4 15−00622 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02251 TXE 4 15−00623 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02252 TXE 4 15−00629 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02253 TXE 4 15−00630 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02337 TXE 4 15−00645 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02333 TXE 4 15−00646 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02331 TXE 4 15−00647 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02332 TXE 4 15−00648 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02330 TXE 4 15−00649 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02335 TXE 4 15−00650 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02418 TXE 4 15−00664 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02421 TXE 4 15−00665 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02422 TXE 4 15−00666 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02423 TXE 4 15−00667 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02525 TXE 4 15−00685 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02527 TXE 4 15−00686 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02528 TXE 4 15−00687 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02529 TXE 4 15−00688 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02639 TXE 4 15−00711 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02641 TXE 4 15−00712 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02643 TXE 4 15−00721 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02644 TXE 4 15−00722 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02645 TXE 4 15−00733 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02646 TXE 4 15−00734 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02647 TXE 4 15−00740 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02648 TXE 4 15−00741 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02649 TXE 4 15−00754 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02823 TXE 4 15−00770 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02827 TXE 4 15−00771 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02830 TXE 4 15−00772 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02831 TXE 4 15−00774 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02832 TXE 4 15−00775 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02834 TXE 4 15−00776 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02835 TXE 4 15−00777 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−02858 TXE 4 15−00797 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00061 TXE 4 15−00832 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00062 TXE 4 15−00833 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00131 TXE 4 15−00834 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00132 TXE 4 15−00835 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00265 TXE 4 15−00862 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00266 TXE 4 15−00863 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00267 TXE 4 15−00864 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00269 TXE 4 15−00865 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00271 TXE 4 15−00871 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00272 TXE 4 15−00872 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00273 TXE 4 15−00873 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00274 TXE 4 15−00874 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00334 TXE 4 16−00002 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00335 TXE 4 16−00003 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00336 TXE 4 16−00004 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00340 TXE 4 16−00005 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00341 TXE 4 16−00006 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00342 TXE 4 16−00007 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00343 TXE 4 16−00008 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00350 TXE 4 16−00009 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00351 TXE 4 16−00010 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00352 TXE 4 16−00012 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00353 TXE 4 16−00013 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00354 TXE 4 16−00014 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00356 TXE 4 16−00015 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00357 TXE 4 16−00016 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00358 TXE 4 16−00018 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00359 TXE 4 16−00020 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00360 TXE 4 16−00021 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00361 TXE 4 16−00022 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00362 TXE 4 16−00023 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 16−00363 TXE 4 16−00024 Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. CAS 3 15−00234 TXN 3 14−03661 Gaddis v. Midland Credit Management Inc
[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[10] 11 IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT Case No. 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD)
MANAGEMENT, INC., TELEPHONE
[12] CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AMENDED ORDER SUGGESTING 13 LITIGATION REMAND1
[18] 19 In this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), the motion for summary judgment deadline 20 has lapsed without a party filing such motion and there does not appear to be any pending 21 common discovery to be produced. See Doc. No. 827. Accordingly, the Court sua 22 sponte finds that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings have been exhausted. 23 For the reasons set forth below and pursuant to United States Judicial Panel on 24 Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel or JPML”) Rule 10.1(b)(i), the Court respectfully
[26] 27 1 The Court issues this amended order for the sole purpose of addressing clerical errors regarding the list of member cases at the end of this order at the request of the United States Judicial Panel on
[28] 1 SUGGESTS that the Panel REMAND all member cases within this MDL to their 2 originating transferor districts. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 The member Plaintiffs in this MDL generally allege that Defendants Midland 5 Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Encore Capital Group, Inc. 6 (collectively, “Defendants”), violated the rights of plaintiffs and other unnamed class 7 members by illegally making debt collection calls to them, through use of an automated 8 dialing system, on their cell phones without the debtors’ consent in violation of the 9 Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 , et seq. (“TCPA”).2 See In re: 10 Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (U.S. 11 Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2011); see also Doc. No. 1.3 Originating in 2011, the MDL was 12 initially comprised of four member actions, all purported class actions. See Doc. No. 1 at 13 3. Two actions were originally filed in the Southern District of California: Robinson v. 14 Midland Funding, LLC, No. 10-cv-02261 (S.D. Cal.) and Tovar v. Midland Credit 15 Management, No. 10-cv-02600 (S.D. Cal.). The other two actions were filed in the 16 Northern District of Illinois: Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 11-cv-03104 (N.D. 17 Ill.) and Scardina v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 11-cv-03149 (N.D. Ill.). See
[18] id. This MDL now consists of approximately sixty-five4 member actions, transferred 19 from district courts throughout the United States. 20 In December 2016, the Court entered an amended order granting final approval to 21 the nationwide class-action settlement between then-lead Plaintiffs, class members, and
[23] 2 The TCPA prohibits making “any call . . . using any automatic telephone dialing system . . . to any
[24] telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service.” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii).
[25] 3 All citations refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system. All docket references refer to the 26 docket of this action unless otherwise noted.
27 4 This number does not include all of pro se Plaintiff David E. Mack’s 106 related member cases. The Court previously sua sponte consolidated his 106 member cases under one case number, 15-cv-72328 1 Defendants—for a class period from November 2, 2006 through August 31, 2014. See 2 Doc. No. 434. The settlement resolved only eight member cases. See id. at 25 . Several 3 member Plaintiffs opted out of the class and other member Plaintiffs alleged receiving 4 autodialed telephone calls from Defendants on or after September 1, 2014. 5 In October 2017, Plaintiffs Curtis Bentley and William Baker filed a consolidated 6 amended complaint with class allegations involving calls after September 1, 2014. See 7 Doc. No. 538. Defendants answered the consolidated amended complaint in December 8 2017. See Doc. No. 549. The Court struck Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims 9 from the Consolidated Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 569, and stayed “all non-TCPA 10 causes of action in all member cases pending remand of those cases to their original 11 districts or resolution of this MDL,” Doc. No. 571 at 2. 12 In January 2018, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to every member case 13 complaint to initiate discovery. See Doc. No. 562. Further, at this Court’s suggestion, 14 the Panel suspended JPML Rule 7.1(a) to bar further tag along cases from being 15 transferred into the MDL. See JPML MDL No. 2286, Doc. No. 1074. Following an 16 initial case management conference in April 2018, see Doc. No. 587, the Court ordered 17 the parties to complete their Rule 26(f) conference and submit their Rule 26(f)(3) 18 discovery plan, see Doc. No. 591. In August 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to 19 implement a plaintiff questionnaire, a protective order, and to provide for certain 20 preliminary discovery. See Doc. No. 603. The Magistrate Judge ordered any objecting 21 Plaintiff to file objections to the questionnaire, see Doc. No. 604, and no Plaintiff 22 objected, see Doc. No. 608 at 1. In September 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an 23 order granting the joint motion implementing the questionnaire process and production 24 from Defendants. See id.
25 In December 2018, the Court permitted lead Plaintiffs Bentley and Baker to file a 26 Second Consolidated Complaint and to add Emir Fetai as an additional lead Plaintiff. See 27 Doc. Nos. 650, 651. In January 2019, the Court ordered lead Plaintiffs Baker and
[28] 1 Bentley to arbitration and stayed their individual member cases. See Doc. No. 669 at 17– 2 18. However, the Court allowed Fetai and his putative class to proceed. See id. at 18 . 3 In June 2019, the Magistrate Judge found that sufficient time had passed for the 4 Plaintiff questionnaire process to be completed and moved to the deposition phase of 5 discovery. See Doc. No. 689 at 1. The Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to file a joint 6 status report regarding discovery and expected “confirmation that the questionnaire and 7 responsive discovery process [was] complete.” Id. at 1 . He also ordered the parties to 8 meet and confer regarding a joint discovery plan and a proposed scheduling order for this 9 phase of discovery, a summary judgment motion deadline, and class certification motion 10 deadline. See id. at 2 . 11 On September 4, 2019 and following the filing of the status reports, the Magistrate 12 Judge issued an order setting discovery deadlines and limitations on discovery. See Doc. 13 No. 702. Among other things, the order provided for the deposition of lead Plaintiff in 14 the class action by October 25, 2019; the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendants by lead 15 Plaintiff regarding calling technologies and practices after September 1, 2014, by 16 November 22, 2019; the issuance of subpoenas to cellular carriers by individual 17 Plaintiffs; certain meet and confer requirements regarding other depositions pertinent to 18 the post-September 1, 2014 Plaintiffs; and depositions and disputes regarding pre19 September 1, 2014 Plaintiffs. See id. at 8–9. Additionally, to address the lack of a 20 procedure for Plaintiffs having concerns regarding Plaintiff-specific discovery provided 21 by Defendants, the Magistrate Judge ordered Defendants to file a report containing the 22 list of member cases alleging calls before September 1, 2014; indicating the counsel 23 responsible for responding to individual Plaintiffs to discuss discovery concerns and 24 settlement; and indicating the counsel responsible for responding to individual Plaintiffs 25 regarding “[P]laintiff-specific discovery provided by Defendants during the questionnaire 26 process.” Id. at 7 . The Court ordered Plaintiffs who remained dissatisfied with 27 Defendants’ production to bring the discovery dispute by December 2, 2019 and further 28 ordered the parties to meet and confer “regarding calling technologies and practices 1 during relevant time periods preceding September 1, 2014.” Id. at 9 . Finally, the court 2 provided that “[a]ny motion for class certification and any motion for summary judgment 3 must be filed no later than January 24, 2020.” Id.
4 On December 16, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued two discovery orders. See 5 Doc. Nos. 725, 726. In the first order, Plaintiffs Nicholas Martin and Jeremy Johnson, 6 sought to depose Defendants regarding calling practices and policies prior to September 7 1, 2014. See Doc. No. 725 at 1. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion; limited the 8 deposition to the periods January 1, 2008 through November 24, 2008, and January 1, 9 2013 through March 1, 2014; and ordered that the deposition occur no later than January 10 31, 2020—provided that Plaintiffs’ counsel made arrangements for other relevant 11 Plaintiffs to attend in person or remotely and suggest questions to counsel taking the 12 deposition. See id. at 2–3. Plaintiffs took the deposition on January 28, 2020. See Doc. 13 No. 803 at 5. In the second order, lead Plaintiff Fetai and fourteen fellow member 14 Plaintiffs sought to depose two third parties—Alfred Collins and Noble Systems—and 15 Defendants regarding calling technologies and practices for calls made prior to 16 September 4, 2014. See Doc. Nos. 715 at 2, 7; Doc. No 726 at 1. The Magistrate Judge 17 granted the order. See Doc. No. 726. The court allowed for the deposition of Defendants 18 as provided in the first order. See id. at 5–7. The Court further ordered that “corporate 19 deposition of Noble Systems Corporation must be obtained no later than January 31, 20 2020 and the deposition of Mr. Collins must be obtained no later than February 14, 21 2020.” Id. at 6 . In addition to setting expert discovery deadlines, the Magistrate Judge 22 provided that “[a]ny motion for class certification and any motion for summary judgment 23 must be filed no later than June 12, 2020.” Id. at 7 . However, “[t]he depositions of 24 Noble Systems and Mr. Collins did not proceed[,] and no party asked that the dates for 25 those depositions be extended.” Doc. No. 811 at 6. 26 On January 7, 2020, Plaintiffs Martin and Johnson and Defendants stipulated that 27 the deposition of Defendants regarding pre-September 1, 2014 calling practices and 28 policies would not be limited as provided in the court’s order (Doc. No. 725) but would 1 cover the entire pre-September 1, 2014 period. See Doc. No. 745. On January 31, 2020, 2 the Magistrate Judge granted in part Plaintiff Arora’s motion to compel additional 3 production from Defendants regarding call recording policies and proceedings. See Doc. 4 No. 754 at 3, 4; see also Doc. Nos. 737, 741, 753. 5 On April 27, 2020, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs Martin and Johnson and 6 Defendants’ joint motion stating their agreement that certain written discovery requests 7 were deemed served on Defendants, who agreed to accept service while reserving their 8 rights to object under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Doc. No. 773 at 3; Doc. 9 No. 776 at 2. 10 No party filed a motion for class certification or motion for summary judgment. 11 No party moved to extend the time to file such motions. However, on June 12, 2020, 12 lead Plaintiff Fetai and Defendants filed a joint notice of settlement. See Doc. No. 780. 13 On June 29, 2020, the Court held a telephonic status conference to determine the status of 14 the MDL as to the remaining member cases. See Doc. Nos. 782, 789. After the status 15 conference, the Magistrate Judge ordered that “any discovery dispute regarding the April 16 27, 2020 discovery order (Doc. No. 776) be brought to the Court’s attention on or before 17 July 15, 2020” and “[a]ny request for additional discovery must also be filed on or before 18 July 15, 2020.” Doc. No. 793 at 2. 19 On July 2, 2020, in response to a joint motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed 20 Bentley’s and Baker’s member cases. See Doc. No. 795. In the same order, the Court 21 also dismissed Fetai’s claims based on lack of jurisdiction. See id.
22 Meanwhile, Arora sought leave to obtain discovery and take depositions. See Doc. 23 No. 790. Specifically, Arora sought “to take a deposition of Noble Systems regarding 24 Noble dialers utilized by Defendants prior to Sept 1, 2014 and, if necessary, also 25 propound written discovery on it.” Id. at 2 . Martin, Johnson, and other member 26 Plaintiffs then sought scheduling order changes and further discovery. First, they moved 27 to amend the scheduling order to extend fact discovery, expert discovery, Daubert 28 motion, and dispositive motion deadlines. See Doc. No. 801. Second, they and 1 Defendants filed a joint motion to determine a discovery dispute. See Doc. No. 802. 2 Plaintiffs sought leave to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for 3 production. See id. Third, Plaintiffs also sought “leave to take the Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 30(b)(6) depositions of Defendants’ dialer providers Noble, Aspect (f/k/a Davox) and 5 Livevox, Midland employees involved with its dialers Mike Aronson and Kevin 6 McLaughlin, whistleblower Alfred Collins, and individuals listed in Collins’ complaint 7 against Midland.” Doc. No. 803 at 4. 8 The Magistrate Judge ruled on these motions in two orders. See Doc. Nos. 811, 9 812. In the first order, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the 10 scheduling order because Plaintiffs “were not diligent in pursuing fact or expert 11 discovery, in seeking extensions of deadlines or in seeking clarification of the Court’s 12 Orders regarding discovery.” Doc. No. 811 at 8. As to the summary judgment deadline 13 specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good 14 cause to extend the summary judgment deadline.” Id. at 9 . “In light of the Court’s ruling 15 declining to extend the discovery deadline,” the Magistrate Judge denied Arora’s and 16 Martin, Johnson, and other member Plaintiffs’ motions requesting leave to take 17 depositions and discovery of third parties. Id. In the second order, the Magistrate Judge 18 denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to the interrogatories and requests 19 for production but ordered Defendants to provide responsive information to a few 20 requests for production. See Doc. No. 812 at 14. 21 After the Magistrate Judge issued these two orders, member Plaintiffs filed two 22 timely objections. See Doc. Nos. 815, 821; see also Doc. No. 820. Arora objected to the 23 Magistrate Judge’s “Order (Doc 811) denying Plaintiff’s requests to take deposition and 24 discovery of Noble Systems (Doc 790).” Doc. No. 815 at 1. Martin, Johnson, and 25 several others5 (collectively, “Martin, et al.”) objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order
[28] 1 (Doc. No. 812) denying Plaintiffs’ request to compel written discovery. See Doc. No. 2 821 at 3, 6, 13. Specifically, Martin, et al. objected to the Magistrate Judge denying their 3 motion to compel requests for production numbered 14, 18, and 19. See id. The Court 4 overruled both objections. See Doc. No. 827. The Court now finds and respectfully 5 suggests that remand of the remaining member cases is appropriate. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 ,
[8] 9 [e]ach action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was
[10] transferred unless it shall have been previously terminated: Provided, 11 however, That the panel may separate any claim, cross-claim, counter-claim, or third-party claim and remand any of such claims before the remainder of
[12] the action is remanded.
[14] 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (a). The same statute permits the Panel to “prescribe rules for the 15 conduct of its business not inconsistent with Acts of Congress and the Federal Rules of 16 Civil Procedure.” Id. § 1407(f). The Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial 17 Panel on Multidistrict Litigation provide such additional procedural details:
[18] 19 (b) Initiation of Remand. Typically, the transferee judge recommends remand of an action, or a part of it, to the transferor court at any time by
[20] filing a suggestion of remand with the Panel. However, the Panel may 21 remand an action or any separable claim, cross-claim, counterclaim or thirdparty claim within it, upon
[22] 23 (i) the transferee court’s suggestion of remand, (ii) the Panel’s own initiative by entry of an order to show cause, a
[24] conditional remand order or other appropriate order, or 25 (iii) motion of any party.
[26] 27 J.P.M.L. R. 10.1(b) (emphasis added).
[28] 1 “In considering the question of remand, the Panel has consistently given great 2 weight to the transferee judge’s determination that remand of a particular action at a 3 particular time is appropriate because the transferee judge, after all, supervises the day-to4 day pretrial proceedings.” In re: Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Qui Tam Litig. (No. 5 II), 560 F. Supp. 2d 1349 , 1350 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2008) (quoting In re Holiday 6 Magic Sec. & Antitrust Litig., 433 F. Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977)). When 7 suggesting remand, transferee courts apply the same guidelines the Panel itself would 8 apply when deciding whether to order remand. In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 128 F. 9 Supp. 2d 1196, 1197 (S.D. Ind. 2001). “Remand is inappropriate . . . when continued 10 consolidation will ‘eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, 11 and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.’” In re Silica 12 Prod. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563, 668 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (quoting In re Heritage 13 Bonds Litig., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 1370 (J.P.M.L. 2002)). “By contrast, the Panel has 14 discretion to remand when everything that remains to be done is case-specific.” Id.
15 III. DISCUSSION 16 The deadline for filing a pretrial dispositive motion has passed. Several member 17 Plaintiffs moved to amend the deadline after it passed. See Doc. No.801. However, the 18 Magistrate Judge denied the motion, and Plaintiffs did not object on the issue of the 19 dispositive motion deadline. See Doc. No. 811. Further, there is no outstanding common 20 discovery remaining to be completed for the purposes of this MDL. Plaintiffs Arora and 21 Martin, et al. objected to several of the Magistrate Judge’s orders regarding further 22 discovery. See Doc. Nos. 815, 821. The Court overruled these objections. See Doc. No. 23 827. 24 Given that the time for filing pretrial dispositive motions has passed and there does 25 not appear to be any pending discovery to be produced for the purpose of this MDL, 26 pretrial proceedings—to the extent such proceedings are common as to all member
[28] 1 cases—are complete. Because “pretrial proceedings are now complete, remand is 2 obligatory.” In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-cv-05944-JST, 2017
3 WL 8676440 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2017); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (a) (noting that 4 member cases “shall” be remand “at or before the conclusion of such pretrial 5 proceedings”); Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 , 35 6 (1998) (“The Panel’s instruction comes in terms of the mandatory ‘shall’ which normally 7 creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.”). The Court finds that any 8 remaining discovery, especially any outstanding Plaintiff-specific discovery, can and 9 should be achieved in the transferor courts. Given the current procedural standing of this 10 MDL and the fact this MDL has continued since 2011, the Court finds that the just and 11 efficient litigation of the member cases can only be continued in their original transferor 12 courts. 7 Accordingly, the Court finds remand appropriate.
[14] 6 The Court makes no findings and expresses no opinion as to whether any further pretrial proceedings 15 are necessary or appropriate in any individual member case. The Court suggests remand sua sponte after carefully inquiring what remains to be done in this MDL that may be relevant to all member cases.
[16] After no party filed a motion for summary judgment by the June 12, 2020 deadline, the Court promptly 17 held a status conference on June 18, 2020 to determine the “current status of this MDL as to the remaining member cases.” Doc. No. 782 at 1; see also Doc. No. 789. In particular, the Court generally 18 sought to determine “whether there [were] any other pretrial matters requiring the attention of the Court” and whether the Court should suggest remand. Doc. No. 782 at 1–2. After member Plaintiffs moved to 19 amend scheduling deadlines and compel discovery, the Magistrate Judge denied the motions—although he did order Defendants to provide the responsive information they agreed to produce regarding a few
[20] requests for production. See Doc. No. 811; Doc. No. 812. Then, after several Plaintiffs objected, the 21 Court overruled the objections. See Doc. No. 827.
22 7 Additionally, the Court otherwise finds that a MDL is not the most appropriate vehicle for adjudicating pretrial issues in TCPA cases—as seen in the recent trend of the Panel denying centralization of TCPA 23 actions. See, e.g., In re United Collection Bureau, Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig., 273 F. Supp. 3d 1364–65, 1365 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2017) (“These factual issues, while common, appear
[24] to be relatively straightforward, and discovery is unlikely to be unusually burdensome or time25 consuming. In contrast, the amount of individualized discovery into such matters as the number of calls each plaintiff received, the process and documentation involved in the obtaining (or revocation) of 26 consent, and the timing and circumstances thereof seems likely to be quite significant.”); In re Kohl’s Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig., 220 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1364 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2016) 27 (“At least with respect to those actions, factual issues encompass defendants’ practices, policies, and procedures with respect to making debt collection calls and obtaining and recording recipients’ consent
[28] 1 Upon remand and for the benefit of the transferor courts, the Court recommends 2 that the transferor courts set status conferences to determine whether settlement is 3 appropriate and, if not, to determine whether Plaintiff-specific discovery needs to be 4 completed and to set a dispositive motion deadline for Plaintiff-specific issues that can be 5 adjudicated prior to trial. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons and pursuant to Panel Rule 10.1(b)(i), the Court 8 respectfully SUGGESTS that the Panel REMAND all remaining member cases, which 9 are listed below. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file this Order on the docket 10 of 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD). The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to 11 forward a certified copy of this Order to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 12 Litigation. The member cases are as follows8: 13 / / / 14 / / / 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / /
[19] issues, while common, appear to be relatively straightforward, and discovery is unlikely to be unusually
[20] burdensome or time-consuming. In contrast, the amount of individualized discovery into such matters 21 as the number of calls each plaintiff received, the process and documentation involving in obtaining that plaintiff’s consent, and the timing and circumstances surrounding revocation seems likely to be quite 22 significant.”); In re: Uber Techs., Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig., 247 F. Supp. 3d 1386, 1387 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 2016) (“Although the actions appear to share some factual questions 23 relating to allegations that Uber violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages to plaintiffs, the record indicates that several actions present significant individualized factual issues concerning the
[24] issue of consent and the applicability of allegedly mandatory arbitration agreements to certain 25 plaintiffs.” (footnote omitted)).
26 8 This list does not include the two member cases that originated in this district and, thus, do not require formal remand by the Panel: Prows v. Midland Funding LLC, 13-cv-800-MMA (MDD) and 27 Gazanchiyants v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2375-MMA (MDD). See JPML MDL No. 2286, Doc. No. 08/23/2016. Upon the Panel granting remand of all MDL member cases, the Court will
[28] 1 1. Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC, 11-cv-2368-MMA (MDD) 2 2. Goetz v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 13-cv-1478-MMA (MDD) 3 3. Ferdarko v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 13-cv-1517-MMA (MDD) 4 4. Manasse v. Midland Funding LLC, 13-cv-1519-MMA (MDD) 5 5. Doherty v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 13-cv-2010-MMA (MDD) 6 6. Roy v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 13-cv-2882-MMA (MDD) 7 7. Akers v. Midland Funding, LLC, 14-cv-240-MMA (MDD) 8 8. Santamaria v. Midland Funding, LLC, 14-cv-242-MMA (MDD) 9 9. Quevedo v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-381-MMA (MDD) 10 10. Cooper v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-382-MMA (MDD) 11 11. McDonald v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-689-MMA (MDD) 12 12. Gilmore v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-861-MMA (MDD) 13 13. Weisberger v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1336-MMA (MDD) 14 14. Jones v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1337-MMA (MDD) 15 15. Wentworth v. Midland Funding LLC, 14-cv-1355-MMA (MDD) 16 16. Smith et al v. Midland Funding, LLC, 14-cv-1386-MMA (MDD) 17 17. Bretz v. Midland Credit Management Inc, 14-cv-1502-MMA (MDD) 18 18. Gruver v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1559-MMA (MDD) 19 19. Dotson v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1760-MMA (MDD) 20 20. Benarroch v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1893-MMA (MDD) 21 21. Hill v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1950-MMA (MDD) 22 22. Valliere v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-1960-MMA (MDD) 23 23. Shearer v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2151-MMA (MDD) 24 24. Moya v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2467-MMA (MDD) 25 25. Andrews v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2506-MMA (MDD) 26 26. Love v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2881-MMA (MDD) 27 27. King v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 14-cv-2909-MMA (MDD) 28 28. Howard v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-170-MMA (MDD) 1 29. Glover v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-222-MMA (MDD) 2 30. Gaddis v. Midland Credit Management Inc, 15-cv-234-MMA (MDD) 3 31. Hall v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-503-MMA (MDD) 4 32. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-723-MMA (MDD)9 5 33. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-724-MMA (MDD) 6 34. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-725-MMA (MDD) 7 35. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-726-MMA (MDD) 8 36. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-728-MMA (MDD) 9 37. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-729-MMA (MDD) 10 38. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-773-MMA (MDD) 11 39. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-774-MMA (MDD) 12 40. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-775-MMA (MDD) 13 41. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-776-MMA (MDD) 14 42. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-777-MMA (MDD) 15 43. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-783-MMA (MDD) 16 44. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-785-MMA (MDD) 17 45. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1784-MMA (MDD) 18 46. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1785-MMA (MDD) 19 47. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1788-MMA (MDD) 20 48. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1789-MMA (MDD) 21 49. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1790-MMA (MDD) 22 50. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1796-MMA (MDD) 23 51. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1797-MMA (MDD) 24 52. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1798-MMA (MDD)
[26] 9 This action includes each of pro se Plaintiff David E. Mack’s 106 related member cases. As noted 27 above, the Court previously sua sponte consolidated his 106 member cases under one case number, 15cv-723-MMA (MDD). See Doc. No. 572. The full list of Mack’s 106 cases can be found at Doc. No.
[28] 1 53. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1799-MMA (MDD) 2 54. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1801-MMA (MDD) 3 55. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1803-MMA (MDD) 4 56. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1805-MMA (MDD) 5 57. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1806-MMA (MDD) 6 58. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1807-MMA (MDD) 7 59. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1808-MMA (MDD) 8 60. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1809-MMA (MDD) 9 61. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1810-MMA (MDD) 10 62. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1811-MMA (MDD) 11 63. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2226-MMA (MDD) 12 64. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2228-MMA (MDD) 13 65. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2229-MMA (MDD) 14 66. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2231-MMA (MDD) 15 67. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2250-MMA (MDD) 16 68. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2251-MMA (MDD) 17 69. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2252-MMA (MDD) 18 70. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2253-MMA (MDD) 19 71. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2330-MMA (MDD) 20 72. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2331-MMA (MDD) 21 73. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2332-MMA (MDD) 22 74. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2333-MMA (MDD) 23 75. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2335-MMA (MDD) 24 76. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2337-MMA (MDD) 25 77. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2418-MMA (MDD) 26 78. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2421-MMA (MDD) 27 79. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2422-MMA (MDD) 28 80. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2423-MMA (MDD) 1 81. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2525-MMA (MDD) 2 82. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2527-MMA (MDD) 3 83. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2528-MMA (MDD) 4 84. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2529-MMA (MDD) 5 85. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2639-MMA (MDD) 6 86. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2641-MMA (MDD) 7 87. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2643-MMA (MDD) 8 88. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2644-MMA (MDD) 9 89. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2645-MMA (MDD) 10 90. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2646-MMA (MDD) 11 91. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2647-MMA (MDD) 12 92. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2648-MMA (MDD) 13 93. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2649-MMA (MDD) 14 94. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2650-MMA (MDD) 15 95. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2651-MMA (MDD) 16 96. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2653-MMA (MDD) 17 97. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2822-MMA (MDD) 18 98. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2823-MMA (MDD) 19 99. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2827-MMA (MDD) 20 100. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2830-MMA (MDD) 21 101. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2831-MMA (MDD) 22 102. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2832-MMA (MDD) 23 103. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2834-MMA (MDD) 24 104. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2835-MMA (MDD) 25 105. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-2858-MMA (MDD) 26 106. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-61-MMA (MDD) 27 107. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-62-MMA (MDD) 28 108. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-131-MMA (MDD) 1 109. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-132-MMA (MDD) 2 110. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-265-MMA (MDD) 3 111. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-266-MMA (MDD) 4 112. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-267-MMA (MDD) 5 113. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-269-MMA (MDD) 6 114. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-271-MMA (MDD) 7 115. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-272-MMA (MDD) 8 116. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-273-MMA (MDD) 9 117. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-274-MMA (MDD) 10 118. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-334-MMA (MDD) 11 119. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-335-MMA (MDD) 12 120. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-336-MMA (MDD) 13 121. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-340-MMA (MDD) 14 122. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-341-MMA (MDD) 15 123. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-342-MMA (MDD) 16 124. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-343-MMA (MDD) 17 125. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-350-MMA (MDD) 18 126. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-351-MMA (MDD) 19 127. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-352-MMA (MDD) 20 128. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-353-MMA (MDD) 21 129. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-354-MMA (MDD) 22 130. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-356-MMA (MDD) 23 131. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-357-MMA (MDD) 24 132. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-358-MMA (MDD) 25 133. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-359-MMA (MDD) 26 134. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-360-MMA (MDD) 27 135. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-361-MMA (MDD) 28 136. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-362-MMA (MDD) 1 137. Mack v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-363-MMA (MDD) 2 138. Farley v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-939-MMA (MDD) 3 139. Cray v. Midland Credit Management Inc, 15-cv-1051-MMA (MDD) 4 140. Permenter v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1644-MMA (MDD) 5 141. Arora v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 15-cv-1712-MMA (MDD) 6 142. Basham v. Midland Funding, LLC, 15-cv-2282-MMA (MDD) 7 143. Johnson v. Encore Capital Group, Inc., 13-cv-2477-MMA (MDD) 8 144. Rumbough v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 15-cv-2943-MMA (MDD) 9 145. Cockman v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-1362-MMA (MDD) 10 146. Pugh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 16-cv-1977-MMA (MDD) 11 147. Eaton et al v. Midland Credit Management Inc, 16-cv-3025-MMA (MDD) 12 148. Gilbert v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-115-MMA (MDD) 13 149. Boyd v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-471-MMA (MDD) 14 150. Colacchia v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-472-MMA (MDD) 15 151. Miller v. Midland Fundng LLC, 17-cv-473-MMA (MDD) 16 152. Duval v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-475-MMA (MDD) 17 153. Cruz v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-476-MMA (MDD) 18 154. Morris v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-479-MMA (MDD) 19 155. Avesian v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-482-MMA (MDD) 20 156. Richino-Brown v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-483-MMA (MDD) 21 157. Lefler v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-504-MMA (MDD) 22 158. Spencer v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-605-MMA (MDD) 23 159. Covington v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-784-MMA (MDD) 24 160. Little v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-975-MMA (MDD) 25 161. Ramcharitar v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-976-MMA (MDD) 26 162. Natalie Huffman v. Midland Credit Managment, Inc., 17-cv-1015-MMA (MDD) 27 163. Prince v. Midland Funding LLC, 17-cv-1242-MMA (MDD) 28 164. Negroni vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 17-cv-2522-MMA (MDD) 1 165. Christian v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 18-cv-19-MMA (MDD) 2 166. Lauderdale v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 18-cv-483-MMA (MDD) 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
[4] 5 ||Dated: November 20, 2020
[6] g United States District Judge