Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
523 U.S. 26 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court to which a case has been transferred for consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) lacks the authority to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to assign the case to itself for trial. The statute mandates that the case must be remanded to its original district at or before the conclusion of pretrial proceedings.
Facts:
- The law firms Milberg Weiss and Cotchett were counsel in a prior class action lawsuit related to the failure of Lincoln Savings and Loan, in which Lexecon Inc. was a defendant.
- The claims against Lexecon in that prior class action were dismissed in August 1992 as part of a settlement.
- Following the dismissal, Lexecon filed a new lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against the Milberg and Cotchett law firms.
- Lexecon's new lawsuit alleged malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and other torts, claiming the original class action was meritless and pursued as a vendetta against it.
Procedural Posture:
- Lexecon Inc. sued the law firms Milberg Weiss and Cotchett in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a federal trial court.
- The defendant law firms filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the Panel) to transfer the case to the District of Arizona for consolidation with the related Lincoln Savings litigation.
- The Panel granted the motion, transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
- The Arizona District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on several of Lexecon's claims.
- Lexecon moved for the District Court to suggest remand to the Panel so the remaining claims could be tried in the Northern District of Illinois.
- The defendants filed a counter-motion under § 1404(a) for the District of Arizona to 'transfer' the case to itself for trial.
- The Arizona District Court denied Lexecon’s motion for a suggestion of remand and granted the defendants' motion to keep the case for trial.
- A trial was held in the District of Arizona on the sole remaining claim, resulting in a judgment for defendant Milberg.
- Lexecon, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the District Court lacked authority to keep the case for trial.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding its authority to retain the case.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court, to which a civil action has been transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), have the authority to assign the case to itself for trial by invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No. A district court conducting coordinated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) has no authority to assign a transferred case to itself for trial. The plain language of § 1407(a) contains an unconditional and mandatory command that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 'shall' remand any such action to its original district at or before the conclusion of pretrial proceedings. The word 'shall' creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion. Allowing a transferee court to use § 1404(a) to effect a self-assignment would conclusively thwart the Panel's ability to obey this statutory command. The statute’s specific provision in subsection (h), which explicitly authorizes transfer for both pretrial and trial purposes in certain antitrust cases, demonstrates that Congress knew how to authorize trial transfers when it so intended, and its absence in subsection (a) is therefore significant. The long-standing practice of transferee courts retaining cases for trial cannot overcome the clear and unambiguous text of the statute.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally changed the practice of Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) by invalidating the widely used procedure of transferee courts retaining cases for trial. The Court's strict textualist interpretation of § 1407(a) prioritized the plaintiff's original choice of forum over the perceived judicial efficiency of having one judge handle a case from pretrial through trial. This ruling established that an MDL transfer is for pretrial purposes only, reinforcing the limited nature of the transferee court's authority. The decision created what practitioners termed the 'Lexecon problem,' highlighting the inefficiency of remanding potentially thousands of cases for individual trials and sparking legislative efforts to amend the statute to grant trial authority to MDL courts.
Unlock the full brief for Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach