-2-
originating court, the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants RCHS Operations, Inc., and RCSH
Operations, LLC (together, “RCSH”) assert that RCSH should not be part of the Sha-Poppin action
regardless of where it proceeds, but concurs in Phunware’s request for separation and remand;
alternatively, RCSH suggests centralization in the Northern District of Illinois.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
3
we will deny plaintiff’s motion.
Although these actions share factual questions arising out of allegations that Chase failed to
implement and follow federal regulations requiring that PPP loan applications be processed on a
“first-come, first-served” basis, we conclude that centralization will not serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. On the present
record, it appears that individualized factual issues concerning the circumstances of each loan
application will significantly diminish the potential efficiencies from centralization.
4
Additionally,
the number of involved actions is limited and appears unlikely to grow. In fact, two actions have
been voluntarily dismissed since the filing of the first motion for centralization, and in a third action
(Outlet Tile), the underlying docket indicates that settlement discussions are underway.
5
There are
only four potential tag-along actions.
In the present circumstances, voluntary coordination among the parties and the involved
judges is preferable to centralization. We encourage the parties to employ various alternatives to
transfer which may minimize the potential for duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings.
Such coordination appears practicable in this litigation, considering the limited number of actions
and districts. Additionally, common defendant Chase is represented by the same counsel in all
actions, and represents in the Panel briefing it will support informal coordination of any overlapping
discovery and other pretrial activities.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of the actions listed on
Schedule A is denied.
3
In light of the concerns about the spread of COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel
heard oral argument by videoconference at its hearing session of July 30, 2020. See Suppl. Notice
of Hearing Session, MDL No. 2944 (J.P.M.L. July 14, 2020), ECF No. 99.
4
Plaintiffs allege different obstacles to submitting their applications, and the record
indicates that some applications were granted, some were denied, and some were incomplete or
never submitted. These differences will result in substantial case-specific factual issues, motions,
and discovery. See In re Mortgage Lender Force-Placed Ins. Litig., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1353
(J.P.M.L. 2012) (denying centralization where “individualized discovery and legal issues are likely
to be numerous and substantial”).
5
At oral argument, counsel for Chase represented that dismissal of an unnamed action
was forthcoming soon.
Case MDL No. 2944 Document 105 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 4