In re Chiropractic Antitrust Litigation, 402.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 402.,402. |
| Citation | 483 F. Supp. 811 |
| Parties | In re CHIROPRACTIC ANTITRUST LITIGATION. |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
Before MURRAY I. GURFEIN,* Chairman, and ANDREW A. CAFFREY, ROY W. HARPER, CHARLES R. WEINER, EDWARD S. NORTHROP, and ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, Judges of the Panel.
This litigation consists of four actions pending in four federal districts: one each in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Eastern District of New York and Southern District of Iowa.
The complaint in each of the four actions alleges that certain physician and hospital associations, inter alia, have engaged in a national conspiracy to boycott or refuse to deal with chiropractors and to monopolize health care in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Each complaint charges, inter alia, that chiropractors are unable to secure the services of medical physicians to serve as adjuncts to their chiropractic practice in performing x-rays or lab tests. Only one defendant is now common to all four actions. Three other parties that were defendants in all four actions have settled the claims against them in the Pennsylvania action. Seven other parties are named as defendants in two actions.
The Illinois action was filed in 1976 by five individual chiropractors from five different states (Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Colorado and California). The complaint seeks both an injunction and treble damages. Discovery is far advanced in this action. More than one hundred thousand documents have been produced and more than one hundred persons have been deposed.
The Pennsylvania action was filed in 1977 by one chiropractor and the Pennsylvania Chiropractic Society on behalf of a state-wide class of licensed chiropractors, and the district court has granted a motion for certification of that class. Plaintiffs pray for injunctive relief only. The claims against seven of the nine defendants in this action have been settled. Some discovery has occurred.
The New York action was filed in 1979 by the State of New York through its attorney general. The complaint contains a prayer for injunctive relief and a pendent claim for fines pursuant to a New York statute. Only limited discovery has taken place. On September 5, 1979, the State of New York sought to intervene in the Illinois action solely for the purpose of gaining access to certain discovery. The court deferred decision on New York's motion pending resolution by the Panel of the present motion.
The Iowa action was filed in 1979 by the state chiropractic society on behalf of 150 individual chiropractors. The complaint seeks not only an injunction, but also damages based on antitrust, civil rights and common law tort theories. No discovery has taken place in this action.
Numerous defendants have moved, or joined in motions, to centralize all actions in this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Opposed to transfer are the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania, New York and Iowa actions and certain defendants involved in only the New York and Iowa actions, respectively.
We conclude that transfer under Section 1407 would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Accordingly, we deny the motion to transfer.
While movants acknowledge that there may be some unique factual issues involved in each of the four actions because of specific claims of injury and some aspects of relief sought, movants argue that common questions of fact clearly predominate in this litigation. Central to each action, movants contend, will be discovery concerning the same alleged national conspiracy by medical organizations to criticize chiropractic and discourage the use of chiropractors by physicians and by the public. Common factual questions pertaining to this alleged conspiracy, movants maintain, involve, inter alia, "what chiropractic is, whether chiropractic is beneficial and efficacious, and what the valid distinctions are between chiropractic and the `orthodox' practice of medicine." Movants assert that many identical witnesses will be involved in each action concerning the common questions of fact and that Section 1407 proceedings are necessary in order to avoid duplication of discovery, prevent conflicting pretrial rulings, and conserve the efforts of the parties and the judiciary.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. While the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n
...the Multidistrict Panel's decision. On January 22, 1980, the Panel issued an opinion denying transfer. In re Chiropractic Antitrust Litigation, 483 F.Supp. 811 (J.P.M.L.1980). The Panel recognized that there were indeed questions of fact common to all four cases: central to each action will......
-
Shire City Herbals, Inc. v. Blue
...can presumably be used in this case. The parties' work at the TTAB need not be duplicated here. See In re Chiropractic Antitrust Litig., 483 F. Supp. 811, 813 (J.P.M.L. 1980) (in multidistrict litigation where the issue of duplicate discovery arose, the parties could request discovery compl......
- Biederman v. Scharbarth, Civ. A. No. 79-C-346.
-
Table of Cases
...Okla. 2008), 83 Chiquita Int’l Ltd. v. M/V Bolero Reefer, 1994 WL 263603 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), 146 Chiropractic Antitrust Litig., In re , 483 F. Supp. 811 (J.P.M.L. 1980), 168 Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., In re , 860 F.2d 844 (8th Cir. 1988), 151, 158 Chubb Integrat......
-
Strategic Considerations For Multidistrict Litigation
...scenarios differed considerably, and individual, not common, questions of fact predominated); In re Chiropractic Antitrust Litig., 483 F. Supp. 811, 813 (J.P.M.L. 1980) (transfer denied because of significant progress already made in two of the districts and that transfer would not serve co......