In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation, 201A.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1975
• Docket Number: No. 201A.,201A.
• Citation: In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation, 405 F.Supp. 1404 (J.P.M.L. 1975)
• Parties: In re SUGAR INDUSTRY ANTITRUST LITIGATION. E. O. Hudson Sr., et al. v. Savannah Foods & Industries, Inc., et al., D. South Carolina, Civil Action No. 75-1147
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

405 F. Supp. 1404

In re SUGAR INDUSTRY ANTITRUST LITIGATIONE. O. Hudson Sr., et al. v. Savannah Foods & Industries, Inc., et al., D. South Carolina, Civil ActionNo. 75-1147

No. 201A.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

December 16, 1975.

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.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Panel previously transferred several actions in this litigation to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable George H. Boldt, sitting by designation, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation,395 F.Supp. 1271(Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1975).Since the above-captioned action appeared to involve questions of fact common to the previously transferred actions, the Panel issued an order conditionally transferring it to the Northern District of California for inclusion in the proceedings pending there.¹

Plaintiffs in this action are a soft drink bottling company and its two general partners.They allege that three defendants, Savannah Foods & Industries, Inc.(Savannah), Consolidated Foods Corporation(Consolidated) and Amstar Corporation(Amstar), along with certain named co-conspirators, violated the federal antitrust laws by combining to monopolize and restrain trade in sugar and by adopting and utilizing a pricing structure that resulted in unlawful price discrimination.

All parties recognize that Hudson is similar to another antitrust involving the sugar industry, Milton W. Freedman et al. v. Amalgamated Sugar Co. et al., E.D.Pa., Civil ActionNo. 75-514, 399 F.Supp. 1397, in its naming of so-called Eastern and Western defendants.²We recently considered whether to transfer Freedman to the Northern District of California for inclusion in the ongoing proceedings there and decided to leave the action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, subject to plaintiffs' implementation of their proposal to dismiss all claims against the solely Western defendants, amend their class allegation to include only Eastern plaintiffs and refrain from initiating discovery against the Western defendants or their employees (with minor exceptions).In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation,399 F.Supp. 1397(Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.1975).³

Savannah, a so-called Eastern defendant, moves the Panel for an order vacating the conditional transfer order and transferring Hudson to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pretrial coordination or consolidation with Freedman.Amstar, which is considered both an Eastern and a Western defendant, also favors transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.Union Sugar Division of Consolidated, which is a Western defendant, and six other Western refiners which are named as co-conspirators⁴, seek transfer to the Northern District of California or, in the alternative, favor any measures that will preclude their involvement elsewhere.Plaintiffs express their preference for the Northern District of California.

We have concluded that the most just and efficient manner in which to handle this action is to sever the claims of the plaintiffs against defendants Savannah, Amstar and Consolidated.Since Savannah is solely an Eastern defendant, claims against it will be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for Section 1407 proceedings with Freedman.Claims against defendants Amstar, the only Eastern and Western defendant, and Consolidated, a solely Western defendant, will be transferred to the Northern District of California for inclusion with the litigation previously transferred there.

Plaintiffs, defendant Consolidated and the six Western refiners which are named as co-conspirators argue that transfer of Hudson to California is necessary in order to avoid duplicative discovery and possible inconsistent rulings.Defendant Consolidated and the alleged co-conspirators have no objection to severance as an alternative, however, so long as they can be disassociated from the eastern aspect of this litigation.

Defendant Savannah contends that Hudson and Freedman share common questions of fact on the economic and conspiratorial issues and differ from the actions previously transferred to California.Thus, they insist that duplication of discovery between Hudson and the previously transferred actions is unlikely.In addition, these parties maintain that on balance the convenience of parties and witnesses will be best served by transferring this action to Pennsylvania.Defendant Amstar takes the simple position that the Panel's decision in Hudson should follow its decision in Freedman and, therefore, also urges transfer to Pennsylvania.

As we stated in Freedman,we recognize that the dual aspects of this litigation are not totally disparate, especially in light of Amstar's nationwide role in the sugar industry; but we...