IN RE: Bestline Products Securities and Antitrust Litigation

| Case MDL No. 162 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 6
em
ge: 996 375 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT
1549, 20 T.1d.2d Poe e:8). Tae ques- nus petition. "(pusemespondent’s motion
tion of jurisdictiolfover the challenge of is granted and thi action is ordered
such a detainer ws considered by the transferred to the €oniral District of
Second Cireuit in Pnited States ex vel. California. Scegls® Dodd v. United
Meadows v. New ork, 426 F.2d 1i76 Sinfes Marshal, 439 f=d 774 (24 Cir.
(2d Cir, 1970). In Shalt casc a petiiion- 1671).
er in federal custofly in Georgia chal- So ordered. .
+ lenged a detainer is§ied by a New York ’
court located in the fo uthein District of : .New York. The codrt found thut the
federal district cour in the Southern W |
District of New Yorkgad jurisdiction to
consider the habeas cdrpus petition even
though petitioner was Currently confined ’
it a penitentiary in Georgia. Tn Mead-
; ows, the Second Ciredit considered the
reasons behind the gurisdictional ye-
quirements of the feddfai habeas corpus It re BESTLINE PRODUCTS SECURI-
statute and concluded§ that in a case TIES AND ANTIYRUST LITE
where a petitioner wask hallenging a de- R GATICK.
tainer, the preferred jurisdiction to No. 162.
challenge that detainfr would be the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
- court that gave the sgfitence upon which April 29, 1974.: - the detainer was baged, The court in
: Meadows reasoned that petitioner did
; not question the lozafity of hig presentTy detention; instead, His aim was to se- Proceedings were jastituted upoi
: cure the withdrawal of the dotainer common defendan®’s motion Jor transfer )lodzed against him bf the New York au- of all actions to single district for coo.
thorities. The cout best situated to dinated or consolidated pretrial proce:d- .
— grant this relief wuld be the district ings. The Judiciai Panel on Muitiuis-
TE court located in the Plate of New York, trict Litigation held that actions which
the state which had §odged the detainer, stood factuaily isolated irom other ac-
i Similarly, in this ¢hse petitioner does tions would not, be transferred; und
| not challenge his c@ufinement in New that common questions of fact concern-
York. Ie challenge the detainer upon ing alleged pyramidal recruiting and
which his future confinement in Califor- marketing techniques of common defend-
’ nia would be basedg Thus, the court ant in gencral sccuritics and antitrust
best suited to grant ghat relief would he actions and similar class allegations of
a district court locapd in the State of nationwide groups of common defend-
California. Other fdftors considered in wab's disivibutors warranted transfer of
’ Meadows which jed t® the decision that aciions for purpose of discovery to sin-
: the district court within which sentence se district where discovery had pro-’
wis pronounced would be the preferred #7essed further than in any of other ac-
juvisdiction were mofe practical ones. Lions and where a great number of rele-
’ The fact that all of the recovds of ihn vant documents were located.
challenged conviction, fany of petition- Order in accordance with opinion.
ev's potential witnessel, ag well as the .
proper representation jot the veal rve- i. Courls €277.2
spondents in interest, gl pointed to the Actions waich stood factually isolat-
district of sentencing 4s the proper fo- cg from other actions would noi be
Fa rum for considera Jf & habeas cor- transferred for coordinated or consoli-

La me Case MDL No. 162 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 6
27# FORO Faeoie,nee
0 IN RE BESTLINE PRODUCTS SECURITIES & ANTITRUST LITIGATION G27] Cite as 375 ¥.Supp. 926 (1574) :
dated pretrial proceedings with general of the California actions. Plaintiffs in
securities and antitrust actions. 28 U. actions filed in Wisconsin and Louisi-
S.C.A. § 1407. ana, however, oppose transfer of their
2. Courts €=277.2 respective actions. We find that all the
. Common questions of fact concern- actions, except the Lwo actions pending
. ing alleged pyramidal recruiting and m the Northern District ot California,
marketing techniques of common defend- contain common questions oi fact and
ant in general securities and antitrust that their transfer to the Southern Dis- ’
actions and similar class allegations of trict of Florida will be for the conven .
nationwide groups of common defend- tence of the parties and witnesses and
ant’s distributors warranted transfer of promote the just and efficient conduct
actions for purpose of discovery to sin- of the litization.
gle district where discovery had pro- {1] We agrce with the parties that :
“gressed further than in any of other ac- the Forsland and Anspuch actions in the :
tions and where a great number of rele- Northern District of California bear no
vant documents were located. 28 U.S.C. significant factual relationship to the
A. § 1407; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 23, other actions. The Forsland action is a
28 U.S.C.A. . purely contractual dispute between Best-
} line and a former distributor; and the
——— Anspach action involves a dispute con-- -
. Before ALFRED P. MURRAH* cerning the terms of an alleged agree-
- . Chairman. and JOHN MINOR WIS- ment under which plaintiff Anspach
DOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EpwiN Manufactured some of Bestline's prod-
= A. ROBSON, WILLIAM 1. BECKER, ucts in Mexico. Since these two actions
Co JOSEPH S. LORD, IIT, and STANLEY stand factually isolated, no purpose ’
A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel. wouid be served by transferring them: : under Section 1407 for coordinated or
Ed oe consolidated pretrial proceedings with :
OPINION AND ORDER the general securities and antitrust ac- .
| PER CURIAM. . tions. : .] This litigation consists of nine actions {2] The parties opposing transfer of :
’ in eight different districts involving an their actions to the Southern District of
’ alleged multilevel marketing system for Florida assert that because of the vary-
biodegradable cleaning products operat- ing scope of each plaintiff's allegations,
ed by Bestline Products, Inc. Plaintiffs therc are not sufficient common ques-
in seven of the actions are disgruntled tions of fact to warrant transfer under
| former Bestline distributors who allege Scction 1407. They also contend that
common law fraud and violations of fed- some of the actions do nol involve the
. eral securities and antitrust laws by types of complexities for which Section
Co Restline, its former directors and 1407 procedures were designed. We do
i agents. The other two actions, both not agree. The wide-ranging legal con-
filed in the Northern District of Califor- teations in all the actions present com-
nia, appear to be only marginally related mon questions of fact concerning the al- ~
to the seven general securities and anti- leged pyramidal recruiting and market-
trust actions. Common defendant Best- ing techniques of Bestline. And four of
line originally moved the Panel for the actions contain similav Rule 23 class
transfor of all the actions to ihe South- aliegations on behalf of nationwide
ern District of Florida for coordinated groups of Bestline distributors. There-
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pur- fore, transfer of these actions to a single
Tha suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Bestline has district will prevent duplicative discovery
pro -Y Cl © since withdrawn its support for transfer and avoid the possibilily of inconsistent
C ' . *Judge Murrah was unable to attend the hearing and, therefore, took no purt in the consider- }	ation or decision of this matter.

| --
| - Case MDL No. 162 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 6
| fn iil 0 Bien © vind
® } aun 37h PEDARAL SUPPLLIALNT. i AN -
: ) class delerminations by the transferor SCHEDULEA
i courts. ;
: : . eo Eastern District of Wisconsin Co
The Southern District of Florida is - Tm
the most appropriate transferees district, ip Ammerman, et al. vo Civil Action: re mosy apprep 1aue H ansleree Grsivic. Bestiine Produsts, Inc. Ho. 70-Cmitan
Discovery In the action pending thers Co
aE Lo . worthern District of Caiifornia
has progressed Turther than discovery in ———— tert i mn 20m
: any of the other actions, and a great Paul Anspach vo esting Prods ial Action
ot R ’ ucts, Inc, ct al No, C=73-120z-000 :
: number of relevant documents are locat- 7 rT . Oo	. . . Corcthy Forsiand v. Be:stline Civil Acticn
: ed in Miami. Produnts, inc. No. 075-775 -70W
It is thevefore ordered thal transfer gage District of Lowisiana -
of the aclions entitled Paul Anspach v. Eran AO a. B a	pts Tien Say fal Francis A. Bienvenise, et Glow, Civil Action
Bestiine Products, lnc. et al, NB.Cal, Bastline products, dnc, ot al. No. 73-2719
Civil Action No. C-73-1282-RFP and Co }
) a , A — R NE Southern Districl of New York
Dorothy [Forgland v. Bestline Products, ——————————-rom
©. Inc, N.D.Cal, Civil Action No. (-73- Peter Moron, ct ob v. Bestline Civil Action :	oe . raducts, Inc, ef al. io. 73 Civ. 4533
: T75--ACW, listed on Schednle A, is de- se HE ‘ wt
nied. Western District of Wisconsin
It is further ordered that the remain- pony 5 Kientuet, ea v. Chil ction .	: . . . . estline Products, lac, et al. io. 73-L--27¢6 .
ing actions listed on Schedule A pending ! ! ® ore
in districts other than the Southern Dis- Eastern	District of New York
: trict of Florida be, and the same hereby samuel Tisser v.’ Bestline Prod- Civid Action )
} © are, transferred to the Sonthern District vets, inc. fa. 73-0914
: of Florida and, with the consent of that Middle District of Teansssce
; BL . court, assigned to the Honorable James Gene Whittenbura, eb al v. Civil Actin	! . - . . $14 eLennurg, < ah . WW ALLIGH
; o : : Lawrence King for coordinated or ¢on- gestiine Products Co. Inc, of Ho. 7014 : :
CE solidated pretrial proceedings pursuant eb Co
to 28 U.5.C. § 1497 with the action al- Southern District of Florida ) . ’ ’
: ‘ready pending in that district and listed a i.
man . wl T g 1m tha strict a Peter Piambing, el al. v. Wii~ Civil ActionEs . oo on Schedule A. fiam E. Bailey, et al. Mo. 73-1230--0iv	t v	
i .	
i . . .
| ’ . a
|
Po |
® | |

. i Page 4 of 6
Lee Case MDL No. 162 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 g
: & ) wd fie ERE:
. IN RE BESTLINE PRODUCTS SECURITIES & ANTITRUST LIT. 313eo } } Citea3405F.Supp.313(1975) }a ce co District of Florida for ccordinated or
In re BESTLINE PROJUCTS SECURIT. consolidated pretrial proceedings, addi-TIES & ANTITRUST LITIGATION. . . oo. )on line Products, Inc tional actions which were brought -
Pivian en Daal Dray % ? against the defendant by former dis-: No. A-T4-CA-69 © tributors who alleged violations of the | :
. . Securities Act of 1933 and violations of
’ Jeff Eastman v. Bestline Products, Inc., commen-taw fraud and the Texas Do-. - : W.D. Tex., Civil Action i ti Rk Tr. de Practices A 5 ald ~No. A-75-CA-51 ceplive Arade Practices Act would beToni Holli ih Bestline Product transferred to the Southern District of
, oo oni Hollingsworth v. Bestline Products, Florida, even though Texas state law
Ine, WD. Tsr oa Acton claims were not involved in the Fiorida
] ) litigation. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1407; Se-
. - Earl SBchwettmann v. Restline Products, curities Act of 1937 $12, 15 USCA	Inc., W.D. Tex., Civil Action Ce VTE A Te eA Ce
i. . ’ No. A-T5-CA-63 . § 771; V.T.C.A., Bus. & C. § 17.41 et seq.
SE ) No. 162. ~
. Co ) ) Before ALFRED P. MURRAJL*
Con } Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Chairman, and JOHN MINOI WIS-: } Nov. 14, 1975. DOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN
SE A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, -
- : Defendant against whom former JOSEPH S. LORD, III, and STANLY )efenda aga g . see . A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Lo	Sd distributors brought actions based on & the Panel
: alleged violations of Securities Act of , : - .: B "1933, violations of common-law fraud, OPINION AND ORDER ’
: and violations of Texas Deceptive Trade PER CURIAM.
; a Practices Act sought order transferring The Panel has previously transferredLE "the action to the Southern District of all actions in this litigation to the South-
co Florida for centralized pretrial Process- on) District of Florida and, with the| ing with other securities and antitrust consent of that court, assigned them to oo
fe } litigation which had been brought the Honorable James Lawrence King for-against the defendant and which had coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro-: "previously been transferred to the South. ceedings pursuant to 23 U.g C. § 14074	3 . . ~ . s : > = ue § Ald.
ern District of Florida. The Judicial Defendant Bestline Products, Inc. now; - Panel on Multidistrict Litigation held moves the Panel for an order transf r	: - . . IVES ‘ ax : ansfer- a.
: that where all four of the instant actions ring the above-captioned actions to thea. Trared ane? factual issues with the Southern District of Florida for central-
ori a litigation concerningnature and ized pretrial processing with the litiga--operation of defendant's marketing pro- tion currently pending there. All plain.gram, the actions would be transferred tiffa oppose transfer
: notwithstanding distributors’ argument ) oC )
© that transfer was inappropriate because ] We find that these tag-along actions
: the Texas state law claims were not in- involve questions of fact common to the -
volved in the Flovida litigation. actions previously bransforeed to the
Actions transferred, Santhern District of Flovida and that h
their transfer to thal disieiet for co-
} ordinated or consolidated pretrinl pro-
Courts NE ceedings pursuant to 28 U.5.C. § 1407
: Where prior actions against the will host serve the convenience of the
same defendant based on alleged viola- pacties and witnesses and promote the
tions of securities and antitrust laws Just and efficient conduct of this litiga-	had been transferred to the Southern tion. |
* Judge Murch took no part in the considera- Lo In re ftestline Products Scewritica d 4 wii.tion or decision of this matter, {rust Litigation, 370 F.Supp, 4926 (Jud. Inn.
C J 40SF.Supp.—20V: : Mut.Lit.19743, :
Vv ~ . : .

Cs - Case MDL No. 162 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 6
: bin5 be. eid
eo ne 314 405 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT So
Plaintiffs in all four actions are dis- Lawrence King for coordinated or con-
: gruntled former Bestline distributors solidated pretrial proceedings with the
- Who allege that Bestline committed vari- actions previously transferred to that .
. ous violations in connection with its district. To
SL multilevel marketing system for biode- .
oo gradable cleaning agents. Specifically, : oo
} : the plaintiff in Black charges defendant
with violations of Section 12 of the Se- = . 7
+ curities Act of 1933, while plaintiffs in . .Hollingsworth, Eastman -and Schwett- } N :
mann allege violations of common law © .
- fraud and the Texas Deceptive Trade : I
- : Practices Act. ©. In re STIRLING, HOMEX CORPORA-
- - Plaintiffs argue that transfer is inap- TION SEG ) TATIGATION.
B gE propriate because the Texas state law R.C. Fernon, Jr., §t ux. v. Merrill Lynch, .
+ - claims asserted in three of these four Pierce, Fen oC Smith, Inc.,© actions are not involved in the Florida No. 7 190 Civ. TK. :
) : litigation. We disagree. SE -© Nb. 126. -
~~" Although three of the Texas actions Judicial Panel NGS apa Litigation. . }: } ' raise legal theories not presently before * ' Eg ) - .
: . the transferee court, all four of these i
: tag-along actions clearly share common. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict -
: y factual issues with the Florida litigation Litigation transfegred action for alleged
C oe ) Be the ature and NN violations of fedefal securities laws toestiine’s marketing program. IS" the Southern Dist¥ict of New York for
commonality of factual questions under- 0aired or confolidated pretrial pro- } oo
SE lies all legal theories alleged-in the four 4:0oc whore dion raised questions .
: actions before us. Thus, transfer will of fact common : actions previously :
] ~ prevent duplicatic1 of discoveryand ansferred to thaf district and transfer
eliminate the possibility of inconsistent would best serve dbnvenience of parties
i : . pretrial rulings, and any tate a ques: and witnesses and Bromote just and effi-: "tions relating to Texas state law can jo 4 conduct of litfation. .. Co 5
i easily be decided by the transferee judge “ Order accordi A1y. Co“in the course of the proceedings. Co i
© Moreover, inasmuch as discovery in . i :
the previously transferred actions has Courts 2012 J
+ “progressed to a considerable degree, pro- Action for alle god violations of fed- :
cedures are available whereby such dis- ral securities faws ¢ failing fo disclose: covery can be utilized by the parties in ‘material adverse fects and m making
these four actions and, as a result, they misleading statem ts JP connection :
will no doubt experience savings of time, with purchase and fle of securities wastransferred by Judigial Panel on Multi-
: effort and expe ses. See Manual for “°° ; BLEeee a district Litigation $ Southern District
Complex Litigation, Parts I and II, § he ISOPSR ] - ]
3.11 (rev. ed. 1973). of New York for co 4 dinated or consoli-dated pretrial procelidings where action
Cea It is therefore ordered that, pursuant raised questions of Hact common to ac-
to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the above-captioned tions previously tralsferred to thal dis-
actions he, and the same hereby are, trict and transfer wluld best serve con-
transferred to the Southern District of venience of parties and witnesses and
. Florida and, with the consent of that promote just ard-g ient, conduct of lit- .
C 3 court, assigned to the Honorable James igation by avoiding dupiipmtive discovery

Case MDL No. 162 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 6
JUDICIAL PARCL on
WL THOISTRIET LITIGATION
FILED
® HAY -5 1985pp pied til
- TRICIA B. 18] Ty
SRK OF THE PANEL
DOCKET NO. 162
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE BESTLINE PRODUCTS SECURITIES & ANTITRUST LITIGATION
ORDER REASSIGNING LITIGATION
Inasmuch as the actions involved in the above-referenced
litigation were remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit and are currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida before the
Honorable Stanley Marcus,
IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned litigation be, and the same
hereby is, REASSIGNED to the Honorable Stanley Marcus for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
a . FOR THE PANEL:
aandndrew	A. Caffrey
) Chairman