Legal Opinion

In re Marriott Int'l, Inc.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided February 6, 2019No. MDL No. 2879PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair

Before the Panel :* Plaintiffs in two actions move separately under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of Maryland. One movant alternatively suggests centralization in the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs' motions include eleven actions1 pending in five districts, as listed on Schedule A. The Panel also has been notified of 70 potentially-related actions filed in eleven districts.2

The responding parties generally *1374support centralization, though there is some opposition to including the McGrath securities action in centralized proceedings.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2014

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lahav v. Binance Holdings LimitedDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2024
  2. Lahav v. Binance Holdings LimitedDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024
  3. Lahav v. Binance Holdings LimitedDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API