IN RE: Sta-Power Industries, Inc., Securities and Antitrust Litigation

. Case MDL No. 151 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 5
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL jypiCIAL PANEL ON
ON ~ MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ~ILED
IN RE STA-POWER INDUSTRIES SECURITIES ) RAR 27 1974 ;
AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 151
PATRICIA	D. HOWARD
CLERK	OF THE PANEL
OPINION AND ORDER
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
This litigation consists of four actions in four differ-
ent districts against Sta-Power Industries, Inc. and certain closely
1/
related companies and individuals. = Defendant Sta-Power moves
the Panel for an order transferring all actions to the Northern
District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. All parties except
plaintiffs in the Colorado action favor transfer of their respect-
ive actions. We find that all of these actions involve common
questions of fact and that transfer to the Northern District
of California will best serve “#lie. convenience of the parties
* Although Judge Lord was unable to attend the Panel hearing,
he has, with the consent of all parties, participated in
this decision.
1/ Two additional actions-ere formerly pending in the
District of Minnesota, Thomas Edward Bray, et al. v.
Sta-Power Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 3-73-148-
Civil, and John Penterman, et al. v. Sta-Power Industries,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3-73-136-Civil. Shortly
before the Panel hearing, the Minnesota district court
entered an order remanding the Bray action to state court.
And soon after the Panel hearing, the Minnesota district
court entered an order dismissing the Penterman action.

. - Case MDL No. 151 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 5
- 2 =
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation.
Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants’
activities concerning Sta-Power's multilevel sales and distribu-
tion system were fraudulent and in violation of the federal
securities and antitrust laws. In addition, plaintiffs in three
of the actions purport to represent a class comprised of dis-
tributors of Sta-Power products.
Because all actions in this litigation clearly raise
common factual issues, transfer for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings is necessary in order to avoid duplication
of discovery. Transfer will also eliminate the possibility
of inconsistent class determinations. See, e.g., In re Holiday
Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation, __ F. Supp. ___
(J.P.M.L., filed December 27, 1973) and In re Glenn W. Turner
Enterprises Litigation, 355 F. Supp. 1402 (J.P.M.L. 1973).
In opposing transfer, plaintiffs in the Colorado action
argue that few common questions of fact exist between their action
and the other actions in this litigation, that transfer will be
inconvenient to them and their witnesses and that the just and
efficient conduct of their action will be best promoted in
Colorado. We are not persuaded by these arguments and find that
the criteria for transfer of the Colorado action under Section
1407 are clearly satisfied. This action raises many factual
issues concerning alleged violations of the federal securities
laws identical to those raised in the other actions in this
litigation. And in weighing the convenience of the parties

. - Case MDL No. 151 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 5
- 3 =
and attempting to promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation, we are compelled to consider the litigation as a whole.
In so doing, we find that the purposes of Section 1407 will be ad-
vanced by transferring all actions in this litigation to a single
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Although the District of Arizona has been suggested as the
transferee district for this litigation, we find that the Northern
District of California is the most appropriate forum. Sta-Power's
home office is located in that district and the vast majority of
documents and anticipated witnesses are located there. In addition,
there is an action pending in the Northern District of California
brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Sta-Power
and Holiday Magic, Inc., another company engaged in multilevel
marketing, which involves factual issues similar to the ones involved
here. And Judge Lloyd H. Burke, who has been assigned to the SEC
action, has had an opportunity to become thoroughly familiar with
those issues.
Plaintiffs in the Colorado action seek an order from the Panel
dismissing the motion to transfer to the extent that it affects
their action on the ground that they were not included on the
original service list accompanying the motion to transfer.
It is clear, however, that plaintiffs were not prejudiced in
any way. Plaintiffs concede that they received notice of the Panel
proceedings more than three weeks prior to the hearing. And,
in fact, they filed a brief opposing transfer of their action
under Section 1407 and also appeared at the hearing and orally

. . Case MDL No. 151 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 4 of 5
- 4 -
argued their case. We find that counsel for plaintiffs have
had sufficient time to prepare their clients' case and have ably
represented them in this matter. Thus, we must deny their
request.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on
the attached Schedule A pending in districts other than the
Northern District of California be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Northern District of California and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Lloyd H.
Burke for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the action already pending in
that district and listed on Schedule A.

- . * Case MDL No. 151 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 5 of 5
SCHEDULE A. DOCKET NO. 151
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Julio R. Sosa, et al v. Sta-Power Civil Action
Industries, Inc., et al. No. C-72-2121-0JC
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Thurman Linker, etc. v. Sta-Power, Civil Action
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Joel R., Gravitz v. Sta-Power Industries, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 73-330
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Kent Carpenter, et al. v. Sta-Power Civil Action
Industries, Inc., et al. No. C-5265