IN RE: L.E. Lay & Co., Inc., Antitrust Litigation

Nor Case MDL No. 187 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of4
JUDICIAL PANEL CN
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
@® BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL 'b-=ON
MULTIDISTRICT rrIcaTION EB 10 1873
IN RE L.E. LAY & CO PATRICIA D: [SEA	«Le . CLERK OF, THE PAL
ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) bO&kE vo. 187
QPINION 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
Two antitrust class actions have been commenced in two
separate districts by plaintiff Lucille Lollar charging that
various defendants instituted and maintained reciprocal dealing
o agreements and tying arrangements and, furthermore, that they
misused a common mortgage escrow trust fund. Plaintiff is both
the class representative in the Texas class action and the
purported class representative in the Arkansas putative class
action.
Plaintiff moves the Panel for an order transferring the
action in the Eastern District of Arkansas to the Eastern Dis-
trict of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceed-
ings with the class action currently pending there. While
defendants concur that transfer of these actions to a single
district is necessary, they favor the Eastern District of Arkan-
sas as the transteree forum. We find that these actions involve
* Although Judges Lord and Weigel were unable to attend
the Panel hearing, they have, with the consent of all
@® parties, participated in this decision.

} Case MDL No. 187 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 4
® | “tT
common questions of fact and that transfer of the Arkansas action
to the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 will best serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
The sole dispute among the parties centers upon the most
appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Defendants
maintain that the Eastern District of Arkansas is the more suit-
able transferee forum because all of the relevant documents and
records, all executive officers of defendants, several of defend-
ants' principal offices and many witnesses are located there.
Defendants also argue that the Arkansas forum is preferable since
® it is the only one where both actions can be tried because of
venue considerations. On balance, however, we agree with movant's
choice of the Eastern District of Texas because the reasons for
selecting that district are more compelling.
We have often held that a factor to be considered in the
selection of a transferee district is whether the pretrial
proceedings in the action or actions in a particular forum are
significantly more advanced than those in any of the actions
in the other jurisdictions. See, e.g., In re Holiday Magic
Securities & Antitrust Litigation, 368 F. Supp. 806, 807
(J.P.M.L. 1973); In re Boise Cascade Securities Litigation,
364 F. Supp. 459, 461 (J.P.M.L. 1973). Here, the pretrial
proceedings in the Texas action have progressed to a relatively
® advanced stage in contrast to those in the Arkansas action

See 7 Case MDL No. 187 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 4
® ah
: and, indeed, an imminent trial of the Texas action has been set.
| Moreover, Judge William Wayne Justice, who is assigned to the
Texas action, has become thoroughly acquainted with the issues
in this litigation and, therefore, is in the best position
to supervise these actions toward their most expeditious termi-
nation.
Furthermore, on principles of comity, we are reluctant
to transfer any action that has an important motion under sub-
mission with a court. See In re Plumbing Fixture Cases,
298 F. Supp. 484, 496 (J.P.M.L. 1968). Since movant has a motion
for a preliminary injunction sub judice in the Texas action,
our selection of the Eastern District of Texas as the transferee
® district for this litigation allows the Texas court to rule on
this motion and at the same time permits the parties to gain the
benefits from coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Finally, because of the different stages of discovery in
these two actions, we note that the discovery heretofore completed
in the Texas action can be made applicable to the Arkansas action
by utilizing the procedures recommended in the Manual for Complex
Litigation, Part I, §3.11 and Part II, §3.11 (rev. ed. 1973).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on the
attached Schedule A and pending in the Eastern District of
Arkansas be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the Eastern
District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned
® to the Honorable William Wayne Justice for coordinated or consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the
action listed on Schedule A and pending in that district.

. 4 Case MDL No. 187 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 4
® SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 187
: EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Lucille Lollar v. First Arkansas Bankstock
Corp., and Worthen National Bank & Trust Civil Action
Co., N. A. No. LR-74-C-289
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Lucille Lollar v. L.E. Lay & Co., Inc. Civil Action
No. P-73-CA-4