TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Southeast Hotel Properties Ltd. Partnership Investor Litigation

In re SOUTHEAST HOTEL PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INVESTOR LITIGATION

In re Southeast Hotel Props. Ltd. P'ship Investor Litig., 796 F. Supp. 538 (J.P.M.L. 1992)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided
August 24, 1992
Docket
No. 932
Judges
Dillin, Enright, Merhige, Nangle, Pollack, Pollak
Citations
796 F. Supp. 5381992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20466

Opinion of the Court — Nangle

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

TRANSFER ORDER JOHN F. NANGLE, Chairman.

This litigation presently consists of four actions pending in three federal districts as follows: two actions in the Western District of North Carolina 1 and one action *539 each in the Southern District of Georgia and the Northern District of Illinois. Before the Panel is a motion by Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. (Bear Stearns), a defendant in all four actions, to centralize the actions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 , in the Western District of North Carolina for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in all four actions oppose the motion. Plaintiffs favor deferral of the matter pending rulings on various pretrial motions in the actions. Alternatively, they favor denial of the 1407 motion on its merits. In the event the Panel deems centralization appropriate, they would favor the Southern District of Georgia as the transferee forum.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact and that transfer under Section 1407 to the Western District of North Carolina will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Common factual questions arise because all actions contain allegations by investors in Southeast Hotel Properties Limited Partnership (Southeast Partnership) of substantially the same misrepresentations or omissions of material fact in the same private placement memorandum. Centralization of these four actions is therefore necessary in order to avoid duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with respect to class action determinations), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. Plaintiffs request that we defer transfer until various motions pending in the constituent actions (motions for remand to state court, venue transfer or dismissal) have been resolved. We conclude that deferral is unnecessary, because any such motions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. See In re Plumbing Fixtures Litigation, 298 F.Supp. 484, 495-96 (J.P.M.L.1968).

We are persuaded that the Western District of North Carolina is the appropriate transferee forum for this docket. We note that 1) Southeast Partnership is located in that district and its bankruptcy proceedings are pending there; 2) general partner Samuel H. McMahon, Jr., resides there and his bankruptcy proceedings are pending there; 3) defendant and general partner SHP Capital, Inc., has its principal place of business in North Carolina; and 4) defendant Commercial Management Corporation, Southeast Partnership’s management company for several years, has its principal place of business in the Western District of North Carolina. In light of these factors, many relevant witnesses and documents are likely to be found in the Western District of North Carolina.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 , the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in districts other than the Western District of North Carolina be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the Western District of North Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert D. Potter for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.

SCHEDULE A MDL-932 — In re Southeast Hotel Properties Limited Partnership Investor Litigation

Southern District of Georgia Bonnie Ruben, et al. v. Southeast Hotel Properties Limited Partnership, et al., C.A. No. 1:91-116

Northern District of Illinois Fred and Howard Schnair Building Partnership, et al. v. Bear, Steams & Co., Inc., v. Samuel H. McMahon, Jr., et al., C.A. No. 1:91-7857

*540 Western District of North Carolina Irwin Halpert, et al. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:91-0423 Matthew Weisman v. Southeast Hotel Properties Limited Partnership, et al., C.A. No. 3:92-288-MU

. One of the North Carolina actions (Halpert) was ordered transferred from the Northern Dis *539 trict of Illinois to the Western District of North Carolina by Judge Brian B. Duff on October 17, 1991. The other North Carolina action (Weis man) was ordered transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Western District of North Carolina by Judge Michael B. Mukasey on June 1, 1992.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1997: 119972026peak 1997 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Samuel H. McMahon Jr.104 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 1997)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Samuel H. McMahon Jr.104 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 1997)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F. Supp. 484 (J.P.M.L. 1968) 119

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list