Ralph Williams, Inc. v. Chrysler Corporation

• Decision Date: 26 May 1971
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 70-931.
• Citation: 327 F. Supp. 469
• Parties: RALPH WILLIAMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

327 F. Supp. 469

RALPH WILLIAMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 70-931.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 26, 1971.

David Berger, Herbert B. Newberg, H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Howard L. Schambelan, Philadelphia, Pa., and Harold Brown, Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs.

Robert S. Ryan, Philadelphia, Pa., for Chrysler Corporation, Chrysler Motors Corporation, Chrysler Leasing Corporation and Chrysler Realty Corporation.

Oliver C. Biddle, Philadelphia, Pa., for Chrysler Financial Corporation and Chrysler Credit Corporation; Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, District Judge.

This suit purports to be a class action alleging violations by defendants of the antitrust laws. Defendants have moved for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The individual plaintiff, Ralph Williams, resides in Beverly Hills, California. The corporate plaintiffs are:

Ralph Williams, Inc. Encino, California Ralph's Chrysler-Plymouth d/b/a/ Ron's Chrysler Plymouth Downey, California Ralph Williams Northwest Chrysler-Plymouth Inc. Seattle, Washington Ralph Williams Bayshore Chrysler-Plymouth Inc. Millbrae, California Ralph Williams Gulfgate Chrysler-Plymouth Inc. Houston, Texas

The defendants are six Chrysler corporations headquartered in and about Detroit, Michigan. All are subject to suit in Texas or California.

It would serve no purpose, we think, to narrate in detail the complex background of this litigation. It is enough to say that all of the operative facts occurred in places remote from Philadelphia. This is immediately apparent from an examination of plaintiff Williams' own affidavit. Thus, paragraph 13 alleges a "practice in the western and midwestern states" and paragraph 17 refers to a custom, "particularly in the West." Paragraphs 30 through 44 refer to events occurring in San Francisco. Paragraphs 45 through 74 relate to certain happenings in Houston, — events which obviously will require the testimony of witnesses from that area. Paragraphs 75 through 82 are concerned with a dealership located just outside of Los Angeles. Finally, paragraphs 83 through 88 set forth the gist of three lawsuits by Chrysler Credit Corporation against Williams, et al., — one in Texas and two in California. We are asked, inter alia, to enjoin the continued prosecution of these suits, although in the Orange County, California, litigation, plaintiffs here have moved to dissolve the writs of attachment and have asked for a continuance of their motion. There is also pending litigation in Seattle.

It is apparent that great masses of documentary evidence, physically present in those locations, will be necessary both for the conduct of those suits and of this litigation here. For example, the affidavit of J. David Owens, Assistant Counsel of Chrysler Financial Corporation, states that the Houston litigation alone involves in excess of 100 file drawers of documents. We realize, of course, that the Houston, California and Seattle litigation is separate from this lawsuit. However, one cannot read the affidavits without becoming convinced that they are all inextricably intertwined. Again, a reading of the affidavits has convinced us that it is inescapable that a...