In re Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Equipment, 31.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1970
• Docket Number: No. 31.,31.
• Citation: 311 F. Supp. 1349
• Parties: In re Multidistrict Private Civil Treble Damage Antitrust Litigation Involving MOTOR VEHICLE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT.
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

311 F. Supp. 1349

In re Multidistrict Private Civil Treble Damage Antitrust Litigation Involving MOTOR VEHICLE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT.

No. 31.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

April 6, 1970.

Before ALFRED P. MURRAH, Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD WEINFELD^*, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, and STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel.

PER CURIAM.

Transfer of the actions listed on Schedule A to a single district for co-ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings has been considered by the Panel on its own initiative. An order to show cause was entered on December 16, 1969 and a hearing was held in Washington, D. C. on January 23, 1970. The parties generally agreed that transfer under Section 1407 was necessary¹ but disagreed as to what would be the most appropriate transferee forum and as to the proper "timing" for the transfer. Counsel for certain plaintiffs argued that it would be best to defer further consideration for approximately sixty days to await the outcome of appeals to the United States Supreme Court from orders of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denying intervention in the government suit.² This matter was therefore continued for approximately sixty days and was reset for hearing in San Francisco on March 20, 1970.³

We think this sixty day stay was helpful for the status and scope of this multi-district litigation are much clearer now. The oil companies, defendants in only one action, were eliminated by voluntary dismissal and the appeals to the United States Supreme Court have been resolved. Several new actions were filed during this period and while many more can be expected, those now before us are representative ones with respect to parties, claims and geographical distribution.

All parties now favor immediate transfer to a single district so that pretrial proceedings can commence without duplication or disruption. We need not pause very long to establish the statutory prerequisites for transfer under Section 1407. Although now involving but a small number of individual actions, this litigation could quickly become the largest and most complicated multidistrict litigation commenced since this Panel was established less than two years ago. These actions have been brought by cities, states and individuals with class action claims purporting to encompass all residents of the United States. Each complaint alleges a national conspiracy and thus the existence, scope, and effect of the alleged conspiracy are common to all actions. It is manifest that the transfer of all actions to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings will clearly promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation and will serve the convenience of all parties and their witnesses.

We turn now to the disputed issue: the selection of a transferee forum. The defendants favor the Eastern District of Michigan or, as a second choice, the Central District of California. Most plaintiffs oppose both of these selections⁴ and urge that the actions transferred to a district more convenient to them either the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the Northern District of Illinois.⁵

We think that the Central District of California clearly stands out as the most appropriate transferee forum. It was there that the United States brought its action and the Grand Jury documents which the plaintiffs have sought to use have been impounded by that court. The scope and breadth of the private actions commenced in the Central District of California are at least equivalent to those filed in the Northern District of Illinois or the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. While it is undoubtedly true that many of the witnesses whose deposition testimony will be taken during pretrial proceedings are located in the Detroit area⁶ it is also true that many "air pollution experts" reside in the Los Angeles area and it is likely that many of them will also be deposed. It is also alleged that certain conspiratorial activity occurred in Los Angeles in connection with meetings between representatives of the auto industry and officials of the State of California and the City and County of Los Angeles with regard to the promulgation and implementation of air pollution control standards. For these and other reasons we believe that the "center of gravity" of this litigation is in the Los Angeles area.

All of the private actions filed in the Central District of California since the entrance of the consent decree have been assigned to Judge Manuel Real. Judge Real is willing to undertake the supervision of pretrial proceedings in this multidistrict litigation and Chief Judge Thurmond Clarke has consented to the assignment of all related actions to Judge Real.⁷

It is therefore ordered that the actions listed on Schedule A now pending in other districts be and the same are hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge Manuel Real for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

                                        SCHEDULE A
                                  Southern District of New York
                The State of New York v. Automobile Manufacturers           Civil Action
                Association, Inc., et al.                                   No. 69 Civ 5037
                                 Central District of California
                C. Jon Handy, et al. v. General Motors, Inc., et al.        Civil Action
                                                                            No. 69-1548-R
                William J. A. Sturtz v. General Motors Corporation,         Civil Action
                et al.                                                      No. 69-1892-R
                Marshall B. Grossman, et al. v. Automobile Manufacturers    Civil Action
                Association, Inc., et al.                                   No. 69-1855-JWC
                State of California, et al. v. Automobile Manufacturers

...