Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Centurylink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

August 28, 2019

IN RE CENTURYLINK SALES PRACTICES AND SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to Civil File Nos. 17-2832, 17-4613, 17-4614, 17-4615, 17-4616, 17-4617, 17-4618, 17-4619, 17-4622, 17-4943, 17-4944, 17-4945, 17-4947, 17-5046, 18-1562, 18-1565, 18-1572, 18-1573,

          MEMORANDUM OF LAW

          MICHAEL J. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On August 20, 2019, the Court issued an Order [Docket No. 447] granting the State of Minnesota's Motion for Continuance and Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant and Intervenors' Motion for Temporary Injunction [Docket No. 436]. In accordance with that Order, the Court issues the following Memorandum of Law.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The Minnesota Attorney General began an investigation into the billing practices of Defendant CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink”) in 2015. (Canaday Decl. ¶ 1.) On July 12, 2017, the State of Minnesota (the “State”) filed an action against CenturyLink in Minnesota state court to enforce Minnesota's consumer protection laws and its parens patriae authority to vindicate the State's sovereign and quasi-sovereign interest to protect the economic welfare of Minnesota's citizens. (Id.)

         This MDL was transferred to this Court on October 10, 2017. The first individual case in the MDL was filed on June 18, 2017 in the Central District of California. McLeod et al v. CenturyLink, Inc., Civil File No. 17-4614 (MJD/KMM).

         Discovery closes on October 11, 2019 in the state action, and the State's motion for summary judgment must be filed on or before October 10, 2019. (Canaday Decl. ¶ 5.) CenturyLink represents that oral argument on the summary judgment motion is set for November 7, 2019. Trial is scheduled to begin in March 2020. (Id.) In contrast, the motions to dismiss, to intervene, and to compel arbitration are still pending in the MDL consumer cases, full-scale discovery has not yet commenced, no class has been certified, and no settlement has been presented to the Court.

         During a June 7, 2019 hearing, MDL lead counsel informed this Court that the parties in the consumer cases had reached a tentative settlement of the consumer MDL cases. ([Docket No. 410] June 7, 2019 Tr. 7.) Lead counsel represented that the settlement included a $15.5 million fund and that there was “a lot of work” remaining to establish the final terms of the settlement. (Id. 7-8.) The parties have not disclosed the final terms of the settlement to the Court or to the State. (Canady Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10.) The State did not participate in those settlement discussions. (Id. ¶ 8.) CenturyLink represents that the consumer plaintiffs and CenturyLink have agreed in writing to the material terms of a nationwide class-action settlement in a Term Sheet and will soon move for preliminary approval of that settlement.

         On July 30, 2019, CenturyLink emailed the State and demanded that it “withdraw” its claim for restitution in the state action. (Canaday Decl. ¶ 9.) In response, the State requested a copy of the current draft of the settlement agreement in order to evaluate CenturyLink's proposal, but CenturyLink refused to provide it. (Id. ¶ 11.)

         On August 1, 2019, Defendant and Intervenors filed a Motion for Temporary Injunction to Enjoin and Stay Minnesota Attorney General's Duplicative Consumer Restitution Claims. [Docket No. 421] Defendant seeks to enjoin the Minnesota Attorney General from pursuing restitution claims in the state court action.

         Based on the Court's schedule and the represented availability of all relevant parties, the Court set the hearing on the motion for September 25, 2019. [Docket No. 428] On August 7, 2019, the State filed a letter request for a continuance, which Defendant opposed. [Docket Nos. 430-31] On August 15, the Court denied the State's request without prejudice on the grounds that the Court would only consider a request for a continuance contained in a formal motion. [Docket No. 435]

         On August 16, the State filed the current Motion for Continuance. The State requests that the Court 1) continue the hearing on Defendant's motion until after Defendant files for preliminary approval of the putative class action settlement and 2) alter the briefing schedule on the motion so that the State is provided at least 30 days after such filing to submit its response in opposition to the motion.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.