IN RE: Multidistrict Private Civil Treble Damage Antitrust Litigation Involving Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Equipment

Case MDL No. 31 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 8
NL V/4 7 NS & /.3% 7 wga JUDICIAL PANEL ON Tr
PA MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION TEE oe	- : NYS Ea Rae
FILED x
APR 6 1970 —
THE JUDICIAL PANEL SE a
ON PATRICIA D. HOWARD! |
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION CLERK	QE THE PANEL
v-—.
MULTIDISTRICT PRIVATE CIVIL TREBLE )
DAMAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION INVOLVING )
MOTOR VEHICLE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ) DOCKET NO. 31 -
EQUIPMENT ) Lo ~
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: . oo
Transfer of the actions listed on Schedule A to a single
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
has been considered by the Panel on its own initiative. An
order to show cause was entered on December 16, 1969 and C :
a hearing was held in Washington, D. C. on January 23, 1970.
The parties generally agreed that transfer under Section 1407 oo
1 :
was necessary but disagreed as to what would be the most
appropriate transferee forum and as to the proper "timing" for - - Co
the transfer. Counsel for certain plaintiffs argued that it oo
-
* Although Judge Weinfeld did not attend the hearing he has,
with the consent of all parties participated in this decision. SE
1/ The American Petroleum Institute and nineteen individual oil
companies, defendants in the Handy case (C.D. Calif.), opposed
transfer of that action to any other district. That action has
since been dismissed as to these defendants and they are no longer EE :
parties in any of these actions.

Case MDL No. 31 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	2 of 8
® a-
would be best to defer further consideration for approximately
sixty days to await the outcome of appeals to the United
States Supreme Court from orders of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California denying intervention
in the government suit. This matter was therefore continued for
approximately sixty days and was reset for hearing in San
Francisco on March 20, 1970.2
2/ On January 10, 1969, the United States brought an antitrust
enforcement action against the Automobile Manufacturers Association
and the "Big Four" of the automotive industry. The defendants
and the co-conspriators (which included the remaining domestic
manufacturers of motor vehicles) were charged with having been
engaged since 1953 in a combination and conspiracy in unreasonable
restraint of interstate trade and commerce in motor vehicle air
[ pollution control equipment by having agreed to "eliminate allcompetition among themselves in the research, development,
manufacture and installation of motor vehicle air pollution control
equipment; and to eliminate competition in the purchase of patents
and patent rights covering motor vehicle air pollution control
equipment.”
On October 29, 1969 a consent decree was entered prohibiting
the defendants, inter alia, from combining or conspiring to prevent,
restrain or limit the development, manufacture, installation,
distribution or sale of air pollution control equipment and
requiring the defendants to make available to all applicants
on a royalty free basis, licenses on air pollution control patents.
The City of New York was denied leave to intervene in this action
both before and after the approval of the consent judgment and
sought to appeal this denial to the United States Supreme Court.
The judgment of the district court was summarily affirmed on
March 16, 1970. The plaintiffs in the Grossman case (C.D. Calif.),
attempted to consolidate their suit with the government action and
this request was also denied. Their appeal to the United States
Supreme Court was dismissed.
3/ The hearing was originally scheduled for March 27, 1970
but the order was amended to change the date to March 20, 1970.

Case MDL No. 31 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	3 of 8
® - 3 -
We think this sixty day stay was helpful for the status
and scope of this multidistrict litigation are much clearer now.
The oil companies, defendants in only one action, were eliminated
by voluntary dismissal and the appeals to the United States
Supreme Court have been resolved. Several new actions were
filed during this period and while many more can be expected,
those now before us are representative ones with respect to
parties, claims and geographical distribution.
All parties now favor immediate transfer to a single district
so that pretrial proceedings can commence without duplication
or disruption. We need not pause very long to establish the
statutory prerequisites for transfer under Section 1407. Although
® now involving but a small number of individual actions, this
litigation could quickly become the largest and most complicated
multidistrict litigation commenced since this Panel was
established less than two years ago. These actions have been
brought by cities, states and individuals with class action claims
purporting to encompass all residents of the United States.
Each complaint alleges a national conspiracy and thus the
existence, scope, and effect of the alleged conspiracy are
common to all actions. It is manifest that the transfer of all
actions to a single district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings will clearly promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation and will serve the convenience of all
) parties and their witnesses.
We turn now to the disputed issue: the selection of a
transferee forum. The defendants favor the Eastern District of

Case MDL No. 31 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	4 of 8
® - 4 -
Michigan or, as a second choice, the Central District of
California. Most plaintiffs oppose both of these selections?/
and urge that the actions transferred to a district more
convenient to them, @ither the Southern District of New ¥YorR,
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,	or the Northern Dis#rict
of. Illinois.
We think that the Central District of California clearly
stands out as the most appropriate transferee forum. It was
there that the United States brought its action and the Grand
Jury documents which the plaintiffs have sought to use have
been impounded by that court. The scope and breadth of the
® 4/ It has also been suggested that the Panel cannot transfer) these actions to the Eastern District of Michigan since there
are no related actions pending in that district. We think the
language of the statute clearly permits transfer to any district
regardless of whether or not there are any related actions
pending in the transferee district.
5/ Counsel for the State of Wisconsin urges that all multi-
district private antitrust litigation should not be consentrated
by the Panel in a few metropolitan centers like New York,
Philadelphia, Chicago or San Francisco, but that such litigation
should, on occasion, be transferred to a less populous area,
preferably to a state capital where the attorney general could
act as liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. It may be unfortunate
that litigation of this type tends to gravitate to the larger
metropolitan areas but we note that many states prefer to
commence their actions in these metropolitan areas rather than
in federal courts in their own states. In any event, we do not
see how transfer of these actions to the Western District of
Wisconsin would serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses save the State of Wisconsin.
The State of California vigorously supports the selection of
the Central District of California as the transferee court.

Case MDL No. 31 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	5 of 8
® 5
private actions commenced in the Central District of California
are at least equivalent to those filed in the Northern District
of Illinois or the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. While
it is undoubtedly true that many of the witnesses whose deposition
testimony will be taken during pretrial proceedings are
located in the Detroit area®/it is also true that many "air
pollution experts" reside in the Los Angeles area and it is
likely that many of them will also be deposed. It is also
alleged that certain conspiratorial activity occurred in Los
Angeles in connection with meetings between representatives of
the auto industry and officials of the State of California
® and the City and County of Los Angeles with regard to the
promulgation and implementation of air pollution control standards.
For these and other reasons we believe that the "center of
gravity" of this litigation is in the Los Angeles area.
All of the private actions filed in the Central District
of California since the entrance of the consent decree have been
assigned to Judge Manuel Real. Judge Real is willing to
undertake the supervision of pretrial proceedings in this multi-
district litigation and Chief Judge Thurmond Clarke has consented
to the assignment of all related actions to Judge Real.’
6/ 1f extensive deposition testimony is to be taken in the
Detroit area, the Panel could designate one of its members of
any other circuit of district judge to conduct such depositions
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407(b).
7/ The written consent has been filed with the clerk of the
® Panel in Washington, D. C.

Case MDL No. 31 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 6 of 8
® Ce
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on
Schedule A now pending in other districts be and the same
are hereby transferred to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge
Manual Real for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
under 28 U.S.C. §1407.

Case MDL No. 31 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 7 of 8
DOCKET NO. 31 SCHEDULE A
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
The State of New York v. Automobile Civil Action
Manufacturers Association, Inc., et al. No. 69 Civ 5037
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
C. Jon Handy, et al. v. General Motors, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 69-1548-R
William J. A. Sturtz v. General Motors Civil Action
Corporation, et al. No. 69-1892-R
Marshall B. Grossman, et al. v. Automobile Civil Action
Manufacturers Association, Inc., et al. No. 69-1855-JWC
State of California, et al. v. Automobile Civil Action
Manufacturers Association, et al. No. 70-541-JWC
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Thomas E. Keane, et al. v. General Motors Civil Action
o Corporation, et al. No. 69 C 1900
State of New Mexico v. American Motors Civil Action
Corporation, et al. No. 69 C 2040
State of New Jersey v. American Motors Civil Action
Corporation, et al. No. 69 C 2041
State of Illinois v. Automobile Manufacturers Civil Action
Association, Inc., et al. No. 69 C 2194
State of Connecticut v. American Motors Civil Action
Corporation, et al. No. 70 C 417
City and County of Denver v. American Motors Civil Action
Corporation, et al. No. 70 C 418
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
City of Philadelphia, etc. v. Automobile Civil Action
Manufacturers Association, Inc., et al. No. 70-345
County of Lackawanna, Pa., et al. v. Automobile Civil Action
Manufacturers Association, Inc., et al. No. 70-398
Robert Morgan, etc. v. Automobile Manufacturers Civil Action
® Association, Inc., et al. No. 70-366

Case MDL No. 31 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 8 of 8
® DOCKET NO. 31 - 2 - SCHEDULE A
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
State of Wisconsin v. General Motors Civil Action
Corporation, et al. No. 70-C-70