IN RE: California Armored Car Antitrust Litigation

DE Cage MDL No. 387 Document 2 Fed 0/19/15 Page 1.0f 6 |
mieiz ’
oo | BEFORE THE Ta TIAL PANEL AUG 18 1570 y .
"IN RE CALIFORNIA ARMORED CAR ) DOCKET NO. 387 : I EE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION )o . . . :
....._ .. oPNION AND ORDER TT
| BEFORE MURRAY I.GURFEIN, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWIN A. ROBSON, -
STANLEY A. WEIGEL*, ANDREW A. CAFFREY, ROY W. HARPER, AND
CHARLES R. WEINER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL.
BE This iitigation consists of three actions pending in
two districts: two actions in the Northern District of
California, and che action in the Central District of california.
The three actions were spawned, in large part, by two Co
indictments FInd on March 9, 1979, by a federal grand i.
i jury sitting in the Central District of California. One oo
| indictment charged that Loomis Armored Car Service, Inc. T 1 - =	(Loomis) conspired with Brink's, Inc. (Brink's) and other . a
| unindicted co-conspirators in violation of Section 1 of |
| the Sherman Act to submit two rigged bids for armored car |
services to the Federal Reserve Bank in Los Angeles and — os
San Francisco between November, 1874, and April, 1975. The - :
second indictment charged that Armored Transport, Inc. (Armored
Transport) conspired with Brink's and other unindicted co- E
conspirators in viglation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act :
to divide customers and to submit rigged bids for armored ]
car and related services in California from January, 1965 | :
to December, 1976. Both Loomis and Armored Transport have
pled nolo contendere to the criminal charges.
* Judge Weigel took no part in the decisicn of this
matter. } : |

. : Case MDL No. 387 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 6 Le .
i Ca.
4 1 : Each of the three private actions was also brought |2 in March, 1979.. Generally,	the complaint in each action
3 | alleges that since at least 1965, in violation of the federal
4 antitrust laws, the defendants 1) divided, allocated and
5 apportioned customers among themselves and other co-conspirators }
in the State of California and/or other Western States; :
© I and 2) ‘rigged bids and price quotations for the providing :
7 of armored car and related services in California and/or
8 the Western United states. In two of the actions, Alioto's
9 in the Northern District of California and the action in
10 the Central District of California, Loomis and Armored Transport
11 are the sole defendants. In the third action, State of
[ 12 California in the Northern District of California, Brink's
= | is named as a third defendant along with Loomis and Armored |b | Transport. All three actions are brought as class actions --
14 CAlioto's is brought on behalf of all who purchased armored N |15 car services; State of California is brought on behalf of i
16 "all political subdivisions, public agencies and districts
17 1 within the State of California that purchased armored car
18 | services; and the Central District of California action - ”
19 o is brought on behalf of all customers who purchased armored i
. To car Sor tins from Loomis and Armored Transport.
© Bpésently before the Panel is a motion by Loomis to
21 i I transfer, pursuant to 28 U.s.c. §1407, the Central District22 I of California action to the Northern District of California
' "for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with0a Cle CLL
- | oo Spi 8AR—3 27.78.	w 1781

Loo Case MDL ee Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Cop eoe
- 3 - ‘
® | |
1 the actions pending there.l/ All responding parties agree |2 that the three actions raise common factual questions concerning
3 the existence, scope and effect of an alleged corispiracy
among suppliers of armored car services to fix prices and ~
4 So aE .
to allocate customers in the Western United States. These5 .
parties further agree that transfer under Section 1407 is :
6 necessary in order to prevent duplication of discovery,
7 eliminate the possibility	of conflicting class action determi-
38 nations and other pretrial rulings, and conserve judicial
9 resources. The only dispute concerns the selection of the
10 transferee district. Loomis and Armored Transport favor
the Northern District of California, while plaintiffs in
® the Central District of California action andAlioto's in ’
12 i.
the Northern District of California favor the Central District |3 NE
1 of California. - |
| -
14 | We find that the three actions involve common questions ,
15 | of fact and that transfer of the actions pending in the16 Northern District of California to the Central District
17 | of California for centralized pretrial proceedings with wo oat
15 | the action pending there will best serve the convenience
| of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient19 |
ll conduct of the litigation.
20 |
21 | 1/ Since the filing of Loomis's motion, Loomis has advised
the Panel of the pendency of two additional actions that
22 may be related to this litigation -- Alioto's Fish Co. Ltd.
: v. Loomis Armored Car Service, Inc., et al., N. D. Cal.,
® C.A. No. 79-0730 SW; and The Fisherman Restaurant v. Loomis
Armored Car Service, Inc., et al., N. D. Cal., C.A. No.
24 79-1142 SAW. These two actions will be treated as potential
tag-along actions. See Rules 9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78
| F.R.D. 561, 567-69 (1978).
25 |

. ‘ Case Tt No. 387 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 6 > )
C 1 Loomis and Armored Transport argue that the Northern
- 2 District of California is the appropriate transferee forum
3 “for this litigation because 1) the majority of actions are
" pending there; 2) the majority	of parties to the litigation
~~ favor that district as the transferee forum; and 3) many ©
° "of Loomis's documents and employees are located in San Francisco
6 and much discovery can thus be expected to occur there.
7 "Although either the Northern District of California
8 or the Central District	of California could be described
9 as an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation,
10 on balance	we conclude that the Central District of California
11 is preferable. The documents on which the grand jury relied
in returning its indictments and which are likely to be
( L2 sought by the private litigants are located in the Central }
13 District of California. See In re Hawaiian Hotel Room Rate
14 Antitrust Litigation, 4%8 F. Supp. 935, 936 (J.P.M.L. 1977). 1
15 Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court, in Douglas 8
16 Oil Company	v.- Petrol Stops Northwest, LL U.S. _ ~ , 47 |
17 U.S.L.W. 4416 (April 18, 1979), has required, with respect ’
18 to access to grand jury documents in related private antitrust
19 actions, coordination between the court presiding over the i
II grand jury proceedings and the court presiding over the
20 private antitrust actions. This coordination can more easily
21 | be accomplished by selecting as transferee district the22 same district in which the grand jury sat and returned indict-
23 ments against the principal defendants. Finally, since |	é- much of. the conduct at issue allegedly occurred within the
55 | Los Angeles, California area and since Armored Transports |
|FPI~MAR=—2.27.73.64.174)

. en Case MDL NY 387 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 poe sore
- 5 - | ‘
9
1 principal place of business is located in the Central District
2 of California, it is likely that other relevant documents
3 as well as key witnesses will also be located in that district.
4 See In re Wiring Device Antitrust Litigation, 444 F. Supp. °
1348, 1351 (J.P.M.L. 1978). - i
° IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. :
6 .§1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and
7 pending in the Northern District of California be, and the
8 same hereby are, transferred to the Central District of
9 California and, with the consent of that court, assigned
10 to the Honorable Malcolm M. Lucas for coordinated or
1 consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action listed
J on Schedule A and pending there. :12 Co
13 | | |
14 N
15
16 |
17 ea
18 }
19
20
21 -
22 | |
@:
24
25 |
|

«pr Case MDL No Document2 Filed 05/19/15 oe eoreCd
1 ‘DOCKET NO. 387
2 Schedule A
3 . ‘
4 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil Action No.
5 Lloyd Prell, et al. v. Armored 79-1174-F (Px) -Transport, Inc., et al.
6 i NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7 The State of California,	et al. v. 79-0529-CFP
: Loomis Armored Car Services, Inc.,
8 et al.
Peter Alioto's Hof Brau, et al. v. C-79-0548-CFP
9 Loomis Armored Car Services, Inc.,
et al.
10 )
11
9.13 -
14 =
15 .
iy |
17 .
18
19
20
21 :
22 : |
C3
24
25
. FPI—=MAR=—3.27.73.AM.1 70: