A company sued over the same calling program in three or four federal courts has two main tools for pulling the cases together. It can ask each court to transfer its case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), or ask the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize them under § 1407. The Panel has granted that request in some TCPA cases and refused it in others. Which tool fits depends on how many cases there are, how far along they are, and how much of the discovery is shared.
Can a TCPA defendant move a case to a different federal court?
Yes, if the case could have been filed there. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” The usual target is the district where the company is headquartered or where the calls were placed.
A transfer motion is a judgment call for the court, and plaintiffs’ choice of forum gets weight. In a TCPA case, though, the evidence that matters is mostly the defendant’s: dialer data, consent records, vendor contracts, and the people who ran the campaign. That makes the convenience argument stronger than in many consumer cases, more so when the named plaintiff is the only witness in the home district.
Transfer works best when there’s also a related case in the target district. Two cases about the same calling program, in front of one judge, can be coordinated without any help from the Panel. Getting there early matters, because courts are slower to transfer a case once discovery is well underway.
What is a TCPA MDL?
A group of federal cases sent to one judge for pretrial work. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, when civil actions “involving one or more common questions of fact” are pending in different districts, they may be transferred “for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” The Panel makes the call, and the statute requires each case to be remanded “at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings” to the court it came from, unless it was resolved first.
That last point is easy to miss. An MDL isn’t a merger. The transferee judge handles discovery and pretrial motions, including class certification, but a case that survives to trial goes back home. In practice most MDL cases settle or are dismissed before that, which is part of why both sides fight over whether to centralize.
When has the Panel centralized TCPA cases?
When the cases overlap and are at similar stages. One example is In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2011), where the Panel centralized five debt collection cases pending in four districts. The cases alleged that the defendant placed autodialed calls to cell phones without consent.
The Panel wrote that “Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.” Two state-wide class actions were swept in because, the order explains, they were “subsumed by the alleged nationwide classes in other cases,” and every case had been filed within six months of the others.
Overlapping nationwide classes are the strongest fact for centralization. A defendant facing several putative classes that claim the same people has a real risk of inconsistent certification rulings, and the Panel takes that risk seriously.
Why does the Panel often deny TCPA centralization?
Because consent and call-count questions are individual. The leading example is In re Kohl’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, 220 F. Supp. 3d 1363 (J.P.M.L. 2016), where the Panel refused to centralize twenty actions pending in twelve districts. It agreed the cases shared questions about the defendants’ calling practices and consent procedures, but found that “these issues, while common, appear to be relatively straightforward, and discovery is unlikely to be unusually burdensome or time-consuming.”
The Panel pointed the other way on individual issues. It found that discovery into “the number of calls each plaintiff received” and each plaintiff’s consent and revocation “seems likely to be quite significant.” Two more factors weighed against an MDL. Some cases were far along, past their discovery cutoffs. And many had already been dismissed or resolved, which the Panel said “suggests that centralization is not necessary.”
There’s a useful tension here for defendants. The same individualized consent facts that defeat an MDL motion are the facts that defeat class certification. A defendant arguing that consent is too individual to centralize is making an argument it will want to make again at certification, and it should make it consistently.
| Situation | Better tool | Main factor | What the court will look at |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two or three cases, one in the company’s home district | § 1404(a) transfer | Convenience and related case | Where witnesses and records are |
| Many cases with overlapping nationwide classes | § 1407 MDL | Risk of inconsistent class rulings | Class definitions and filing dates |
| Many individual cases at different stages | Neither, or coordination by agreement | Procedural disparity | Discovery cutoffs and dismissals |
| A case with a forum-selection clause | § 1404(a) transfer | The contract | The clause and who agreed to it |
Should a defendant want an MDL?
Not always. An MDL puts every case in front of one judge, which saves money and avoids conflicting rulings, but it also gathers plaintiffs’ firms into one leadership structure with a single, larger target. Settlement pressure can rise once the cases are combined. The alternative, defending each case separately, is more expensive, and it lets a strong early ruling in one court shape the others.
The decision usually depends on the class definitions. If the cases overlap and a national class is a realistic risk, centralizing reduces the risk of losing certification in the worst forum. If they’re individual claims or narrow state classes, letting them resolve one by one is often cheaper. A side-by-side chart of the complaints helps with that call. List each case’s class definition, the campaigns and dates it covers, the claims it pleads, and how far it has gone. Overlaps that look large in the captions often shrink once the definitions are compared, and a gap in the chart can show which case is the weakest one to fight first. The same chart becomes the core of any brief to the Panel or to a court asked to transfer.
The earlier posts on removing TCPA cases to federal court and on TCPA class action discovery cover the steps before and after this choice. More on how the firm handles multi-forum cases is on its page for federal TCPA defense.
Records to line up when related cases are filed
- Put a single litigation hold on call and text logs, dialer data, and consent records for every campaign named in any of the cases.
- Export the opt-out and internal do-not-call entries for all named plaintiffs, with the dates received.
- Pull the Registry scrub records and version dates for each campaign at issue.
- Collect vendor contracts and scripts, plus any recorded messages, and map which campaigns each complaint covers.
- Talk to a lawyer before answering any of the complaints, agreeing to a stay, or discussing a global settlement.
Questions about TCPA venue and MDL
How long does a ruling on an MDL motion take?
The Panel decides motions after one of its hearing sessions, so a ruling isn’t immediate. Courts often stay related cases while the motion is pending, which can pause discovery. In Kohl’s, two cases were stayed after their discovery cutoffs had passed, so the timing of a motion is part of the strategy.
Can a plaintiff file an MDL motion against a defendant’s wishes?
Yes. Any party to one of the cases can move to centralize, and in many TCPA matters it’s a plaintiff that files. The defendant can oppose, support, or propose a different transferee court. In Kohl’s, a plaintiff filed the motion and the defendants supported it, and the Panel still denied it.
Does a transfer change which circuit’s law applies?
For federal questions like the TCPA, the transferee court generally applies its own circuit’s interpretation of federal law. That makes the choice of court a real decision, since circuits differ on questions such as whether a text is a call for Do Not Call purposes. A defendant should compare the case law in both circuits before asking for a transfer.
Can state-court TCPA cases be part of an MDL?
No. The Panel only transfers federal cases. State-court cases stay where they are unless they’re removed to federal court first. A defendant facing both state and federal cases over the same program should think about removal early, since a removed case can then be transferred or tagged along to an MDL.
Defending TCPA suits in more than one court
If your company has been sued over the same calls or texts in several courts, the class definitions and the shared consent records usually decide where the cases should be heard. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents businesses defending TCPA lawsuits and class actions through its business litigation practice, including claims involving overlapping class actions. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are 28 U.S.C. § 1404, 28 U.S.C. § 1407, and 47 U.S.C. § 227. The decisions are In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2011) and In re Kohl’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, 220 F. Supp. 3d 1363 (J.P.M.L. 2016).
This post is general information about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related laws as of June 18, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Courts and the FCC change the rules in this area often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.