IN RE: Hotel Telephone Charge Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 89 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 8
rn a an Gain SE EER bil
>a a .baniPoCo .. IN RE HOTEL TELEPHONE CHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION TTL ]: : Co © Cite ns 341 F.Supp, 771 (1972) ’ . oe '
Rule 0, FR.Crim.P. Rule 30 expresaly makes his desire knawn hefore the ’ ERrequires that (1) “at the close of the charge. On_the—othet hand, if ne re- Caeevidenre | any party may file quest-isTinade, it is the considered jude
| . wrillen requests that the court nitructAfont of these appellate courts that a de- )
EnA the jury on the law as set forth inHie fendant is better off if such an instruc- PorR requests” and (2) “no party may Gsign tion is given, We agree. R : .
: a4 error any portion of the gflarge or CT ki omission thevefrom unless fie objects : ; RE
thereta before the jury retjfes to consid. Co ts as
i er its verdict..." In this case, Q {mm : : ’	a defendont neither reqfested that we : N LE :
ti omit theidisputed portfon of the charge EE cbLe vor did he object to if at the close of the - EE
. i ! evidence, \ Under these circumstanceg, oo : : - .
Coad we need nbt even fensider defendants - y CTod argument, \See, Cohen v. United States, oo Cl oe) ! RYH 1.24 368 (ot Cir. 1966), cert, de- In re OTTL TEIEPIIONI CHARGE Doe
| nied 835 U.S 1035, 87 S.Ct. 773, 17 1, ANTORUST LInGarion. 0I Ed.2d 682 (106); Holder v. United No. #9. : Pe
Staten, 211 2d 214 (8th Cir, 1859). Judicial Pann! on Multldiatelet Titigation, piocert. denied 36QMU.S. 933, 80 S.Ct, 379, 4 - Marel 40, 1579. E STR2 LEE a5) als Fowler v, United RE RT. .
C ica fad VIA BO (Sth Cir. 1057) 0 AS Modified April 21, we. egedBven if we fweke to consider defond- . SERRE ECT SE
ant’s contention, we find it without rer- The Judicial Panel of ultidistrict Co :
it. _Althoueh [it may be improper	for a = Litigation ‘would transfer multidistriet © TEEjudee te. ehafee a Jory ‘on the defond- antitrust action concerning alleged: con- fs i
St ant’e failure fo take the stand where the spiratorial conduct of hotels in imposing. ia R i wedfendant hs expresdy requested that certain telephone charges on their guests = SL
: such a charge not be iven, (See Caton to the Central District of California for SRI
.¥, United Sthtes, 407 F.0d 367 (8th Cir. = coordinated or conanlidated pretrial pro. ©" oc H
Cl 18€9), thie epurts have u animously keld ccedings, except as to defendants with ~~ ool 0
Cm | - that where go such request, is made, it is whom settlement had already been’ AE >SEs not reversilfle error for the trial judge . reached, where the first action was filed © oo
Riera to extend suph an instructioh sua sponte. in the ranaferee. district, where it ap-=- 0 .
Er - See United [States v. Cartel, 422 F.2d’. peared that a substantial number of the HS PRFEERAE 518 {8th Clr. 1970);	United States v. involved hotels were located there, and © © © ;TU Rimawmich, 402 F.2d 817 (7th Qir. 1970); where it appeared thal some of the ini- - EE
United Stafes v. Jones, 406 M2d 1207 tial facts pertinent to plaintiffs’ allega- © Coa. (9th “Cir. 1069); United States v. Bal- tions of conspiratorial action occurred in Co Co
| hard, 18 Fad 825 (oth Cir, \ogo)y; California, | :
5 United Sta 23 v. Schwartz, 398 F.3d 464 Order accordingly. i.SEE (Vth “Civ £1932); Ianks v. Ukited ;: i Slales, BEY 12d 170 (10th Cir. Lot ); : Cd
United Staten vo Garguilo, 310 F.2d 249 Courts C=277.2 SE RE :: nd Clie, Las	ihe rationale for this Multidistrict antitrust action con- Cl
reli fa Phpa part of {ria ratepy, cerning alleged conspiratorial conduct of cy
bee defendant ought to be permitied to, hotels in imposing certiin telephone [ Co® 4 Jronathing said on the issue if he' charges on their ruests wonld be trans.
Lora Poseler decision futieates that where failure to give it comdituwton n hale tine} : Bfe regi est foe in rtion ga nde, never. highly prejudicial error. Bat (ha by not } oo
a. thet HLH new trinl may he In nrder where oo seh a ene, } -: | - - oe . . a. J

Case MDL No. 89 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 8
: S/S _ 341 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT : |
ferred to the Central District of Califor- for their submission to the class have ’ al ts mi
| nia for coordinated or consolidated pre- been entered in the Morthern District of : I Puitrial proceedings, except as to defend- Illinois! , fos deants with Ww 4 ad already
| ts with whomSeement	nd SNC0Y 0, ia of the bret ond arg Food Lit
a fited in the transferee district, where it ments we conclude that, except as to de- : M.L.1o7: appeared that a substantial number of fendants with whom settlement has been i. Panel. $ithe involved hotels were located there, reached, all actions must be transfered : ciding the
: and where	it appeared that some of the to the Central District of California for : Seetion 14
: initial facts pertinent to plaintiffs’ alle- coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro- merit of +
; gations of conspiratorial action occurred ceedings. The ten complaints are vir- nial of trp
a i in California. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1407. tually identical, containing parallel alle- CO Gavi+] oo ee gations concerning the alleged conspira- everal)na ER i torial condnet of the defendants in im- anced bya BEE posing the telephone charges on their transfer,
| Before ALFRED P. MURRAH*, guests. And in each action the plain- in the trp Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WIS- tiffs will seck to develop a common fac- for jurtse
2 - DOM EDWARD WEINFELD*, ED- tual background concerning the forma- vr 1 KHL	PE WIN A ROBYOM y WILDIAM 11 tion and terms of any conspiracy, the So ik
| - UHCKER, JOSEPH §. LORD, 111, and possiln fraudulent concealment uf the clon of 1. c STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judges of the conspiracy and the methods developed SE cidaal . i
Panel. EE Co for assessing the charges. In addition, Tg	Cen the complaints describe virtually identi- (Here ts Hi
: cal classes of hotel guests. Although assuming
OPINION AND ORDER plaintiffs are apparently cooperating Is trie th
ET EEO SU with one ancther in asserting these . consideraty
PER CURIAM.	+ ~~~ cling we cannot leave the complexities = their. assisESI PACH, J SESE : of the overlapping class allegations’ to= - preclude a,
| "The complaints in ten actions filed in the voluntary coordination of the par- = 0 >On In| ten différent districts allege a nation- tics. We have frequently held that the . that the !
oo wide conspiracy of hotels and motels to possibility of duplicative discovery re- ceedings ¥increase their room rates, in vielation of - sulting from commen fuct questions and’ oO Single §
| + federal anti-trust law and state common the threat of inconsistent judicial deci- ants argur| +7 law. It is generally alleged that the in- sions of discovery, class and other issues somely ex
: | SE oo creased rates were achieved by the addi- “requires transfer of multidigtrict litiga-" 5 the interebs tio of service charges, generally denom- tion to a single judge dinder Section. © tien audve oo inated as covering incoming telephone 1407. In re Refrigerant Gas Antitrnst oo ran °EH © messarcs or internal communications. pig ation. 224 F.Supp. 996 GPL ese ned
: oo The plaintiffs, many of whom are attor- 1971); In re Mastor Key Antitrust Liti- i Antitrast: nevs, seek recovery for themselves and ation R20 T° Pa L404 J PALI CARPAL
on behalf of all hotel guests similarly a Mh oo Upp | Shen The me
“charged. Since the filing of the first 1971). We do so here. SE in this fit
’ _Actioniin the Central District of Califor- Several defendants 2 strongly oppose © of Califor© ERE Huitlements on behalf of the class transfer and protest that plaintiffs have © gilod. Al
a have been reached with several defend- merely filed the same complaint, with preementse anls and settlement orders scltting out vague andquestionable allegations of a i }
: terms of the agreements and providing national conspiracy, in different dis--~ 3. Severn?. Co . : tious! oh
” © Although Judges Muareal, Weinfeld, and Loew's Corp, Diemarck Jotel Co and © majority
. Wobson were unable to attend the hear- ITT Sheraton Corporation of America. Lo mine, hy
ne. they have, with the consent of coun- 2. The strongest opposition comes from Itad- EE ee —	. o- Fines wad Whaat 1e LEAP

Case MDL No. 89 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 8
. CE PRT ed ee TR AER,
dm estamos mens i TEST
2 ) | st. IN RE'HOTEILTELEPHONE CHARGE ANTITRUSTLITIGATION 773 a. CTER Cel Cite as ML F.Supp.	TTL (107) Co : Cn LE
3 | tricts in order to avoid:	the venue re- of ~ involved hotels “are located in Co :Co quirement of the antitrust laws. Simi. California? it does appear that a sub- ) :
“lar armiments were ‘advanced in opposi- stantial number are there and that Cali- : a0 tion to transfer in the Kauffman Mutual fornia would be the most convenient of CoFund Litigation, 337 F.Supp. 1337 (J.P. all proposed transferee districts. It also :
. 0 MLA972) and were rejected by the appears that some of the initial facts IE
N Panel. Venue is not a criterion in de- pertinent to plaintiffs’ allerations of :
x ciding the propriety of transfer under conspiratorial action occurred in (lali- :
Section 1407. Nor is the alleged lack of fornia. - SR
. merit of the complaints a ground for de- We do not belicve, however, that it Lo co
nial of transfer, oo would advance the just and efficient RE
. o ps . © conduct of the litigation or serve the = : ) CT	Several additional arguments are ad- . : . . Sls
bo . . convenience of the parties or witnesses TL :
| vanced by defendants who object to : . Lo -to . . . to transfer the eausey of action against . CLtransfer, Some of the pending motions - . ) )Pow , those defendants with whom settlement co :in the transferor courts concern venue . .	Ee soe has been reached. Settlement orders a Co
and jnrizdiction and others are regquests : fori : :	; . - have already been entered in the North- :
for snmmary judgment by defendants Toe a. . . oo :REE : - ern District’ of Hlinois setting out a Ce! who allegedly made no telephone , : : .EE . ._ complex scheme for notice of the settle. So: charges. Defendants stress that deci- La _[EE LT . ar Lo ment to the class, payments from the Sel	I sion of these motions will involve indi- A : Co : :[RATE BE ey | Seo fund to claiming class members. use of :| vidual factual situations and urge that IE pe :	Lon LO : . any remwoining amounts for the benefit -
there ig little advantage to be gained in . : . . -i Lo . . of the class and setting of attorney fees SEINE	Po assigning. them all to a single judge. It Cen - Lo CoEY Ca , . . for: plaintiffs’ counsel. Effcctuation of cL :ig true that some motions will require \ : .i ~ consideration . of individual facts, but these settlements under Rule 23, Fed I, CL
Ld Note er OO Cly.Py will veqnire continudug judlelsl © :bk hey wilenment to a single judge will + lL I 'h J SE Le	J Co . \ dees Supervision dud we believe it best tg: preclude any inconsistency in their deci- . Lo .ET . : . leave that supervision in the hands of . oC	! ston. In. any event, we are confident _ : :
NE the transferor court that entered the in-- : .
that the majority. of post-transfer pro- he : . .. . RE . itial settlement orders. So Poo =
|. cendings will benefit from assignment to . : A : : :| a single judge. Some smaller defend. It is therefore ordered that the ac
| J ants argue that transfer will be burden. tons listed on the attached Schedule A Cone ee Fe
Lo -sumely expensive, but ave must look to - be and the same hereby are, transferred	= ©. FER IE	Pore on : . a Cy : : ) H i jogs E 2] or, NT M IL v FEA TE SR
bo the interests of all parties to the litiga: to the Central District of California and, EE Rr. - tien and we find that the benefits of with the consent of that court, are as- Le LE3 . 8 - . oC . . ale — 2 : le
! : transfor outweigh any. inconvenience to Signed to the Henorable Malcolm M. Lu-- PERS Lnthese porties. In re Childven's Books or Jor fo Jinnind ov consolidated .pre- = ih Lna : : INE YS IT) TT g or HE co I AN H TE : LE -Co : Antitrust Litigation, 297 F.Supp. 385 ‘ra proeec mgs; J ELITR a : Ce[ CO LPALLI6E). . . It is further ordered thal the plain: 1 SE
I or epee eu TE iste tiffs’ claims against defendants Hilton EER ER
J oo. The most suitable. transferee dis Ct Hotels Corp. ITT . Sheraton Corp. of - ~~:
4 in this litigzation is the Central District _ America, Locws Corp., Bismarck Hotel - - FER eTrn of Culifornia:where the first action was = Co. be, and are, severed from the re- EE | neSRR . A . . . . Cee : EE [ERR| ~ filad. Although there is complete disa- mainder of the actions and remanded to ue cd
; 1th greement” as to whether a majority the Northern District	of Illinois, JERE !HEE: . . : ) i } Doe
Lie 3. Several Lager defendants, owners of na- 4, he plaintiffs contend that the practice : : . } !tional chains of hotels, nesert that the of including: fictitions telephions: charges
Is vitjority of hotels and motels operated hy began in California nnd that rote of the CL Cr Ts :mtmed defendants nee nol in California defendnnts, we membres of the ote) and ! co
Comdealatiadne any event, the majority Motel Felephone Committee, applic to RET JVe Tee NER	She ntors pe not Incated there. © the Califarin Public Utility Commission . : i EE
|e x PLidntitts ead some other deiendants take © in 1961 for allowanee of these charges, I
15 ! ! fre with these contentions, : } . a. Cv

Case MDL No. 89 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 8
1" wma 81 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENY ENCE ER Co.
nT CL. USCHEDULE ART Cos A : : : : C0 Tendanty
CE ENE A Eastern District of Louisiana So Co sellleme,
@® ! | william Colsonv.Fairmont Hotel Co, Inc, Civil Action © EE Northern	etal, So No. 71-1883 Sec. B So claims ap	: | aries, af,
| © District of Colorado tie w	: : ‘Ls Lo : PO dorther
| William Colson v. Radisson Denver Corp. Civil Action : Lif th rhEa “et al © No. C-3237 SE 0x and| : et al. : Lomi the Pam |i	’ ae rg : = 3 doer to Pre
- : . Northern District of Texas Co Gers clairETRE William Hicks v. Hilton Hotels Corp, et al. Civil Action : fondants |
- ST | . Non. CA-3-4924-C : lineis,: | . : _— Ned Lo It appeCl } Northern District of Georgia RES fication 1; William Colson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., ct al. Civil Action oo _ellvctuatii
EE No. 15347 Order of |
a ’ _ ’ It is 0
Sei h oo 0 Southern District of Florida LT Order of |Ce William Colson v. Hilton Hotels Corp, et al. Civil Action . ~~ Drovide th
ny oo on No. 71-1079-Civ-JE ce action Wl	Cd } SE FE : i . - : “Corp. el :
| : - Northern District of Ulinois Co SIR ‘H1-Ca5m	oo : . : Ce es . endants .
oo © William Colson v. Hilton Hotels Corp, ct al. Civil Action } : Di
© D No. 74-C-1590 ceek D- SO : Le 1 Hilt
| rn SETI Boutherit Distejet uf New York : SEE LL U1 Ea	© yvilliam Cblson v. Hilton Hotels Corp, etal. ~ Civil Action nL . Hotels or
5 : “ No. Tt Civ. 2864 oo Gor. Hil: a fda ; ye Cres : . ton Studi| William Colson, v. The Hotel Waldorf-As- ~~ Civ il Action . a. merletoria Corp. NY No. 71 Civ. 2943 oo Imerly Sta~~ Hilten of!
’ BE TE PE © Central District of Califorma © SI Company,Cee Cie ed : iat A Ed RE ce rage Corp
: © Hrevbert Hafif, et al. v. Hilton Hotels Corp, ~~ Civil Action © Uo. Statler -B
| etal eS No, T1-077-MML ©. © 0 Corp, Int
Lo : RIE i _ District of Nevada fe en © Hilton-Buw
EE "Herbert Hafif, et al. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., - = Civil Action coal partner
gL a Co : Cetal. EE - No. R-2582 woe lanta, Ine,
CORRECTION ORDER : T1150 against defendants Hiften- Laitme ¢
: ( Loe ts - LC, i Hotels Corp. ITT Sheraton Corp. of Veras Inte
0 on } Mand 80 1972, an. Op no and, merica, Loews Corp, and Bismarck 1o- ted Lomyr- ~ © ol Hed in’ this lization Ce tel Co. because of settlements reached es Sear	(yy re "ee y * * . . . . +
: RN rine A a ions to the Centra distric with those defendants in that district. ilton Coof California but remanding. to the : _ Corp, blaNorthernebistvict of Illinois the action By letter of April 10, 1972, the plain- Daltas-Cor
D filed in that district (Civil Action No. tiffs and the aforementioned welling de- ices, Inc,	wl EEE _ © Beverage
i re ———————————ere ot rotten a

Case MDL No. 89 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 8
ERR n er	en am a nA ATE Lo
= | ©, IN RE HOTEL TELEPHONE CHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 775. SE
E Co Ce EE Cite as 311 F.Supp. 7700972) 7 PET:
! fendants have advised the Panel that the Store of El Paso, Inc.. The Hide-Away, IE
Co settlements reached in that action in the Inc, Trader Vic's Club, Inc., Beneo, Inc., CY
I od Northern District: of Illinois also cover Nevada International Jiotel, Inc, Dewey. Co
. ; claims against certain of their subsidi- Way Investment, Inc., Hawaiian Village,
a i aries, affiliates, franchisces and related Tnc., West Ridge Properties, Inc. 1335 I.
i entities which were not remanded to the Realty Corporation, 138 W. 54 Realty :
; Northern District of Illinois. The plain- Corporation, and 145-175 West 5rd :
| Ce tiffs and settling defendants requested Street, Inc, Tracy Investment Company.’ :
} : i the Pancl to modify its Opinion and Or- (now dissolved). : EEEB der to provide for the remand of plain- 2. The owners and lessees of the fol-
| tiffs claims against these arlditional de- lowing hotels and inns in the United | : ]
: fendants to the Northern District of 11- States operated by Hilton Hotels Corpo-
Co ..linois, ration or any of ita subsidiaries and af-
g oo It appearing that the proposed modi- filiates under management. agreements:
y fication is proper and necessary to the Hilton Inn, San Diego, California; HWil-
he effectuation of the Panel's opinion and ton Inn, Kansas City, Missouri; The De-
= oo Order of March 30, 1972, ’ troit Hilton, Detroit, Michigan; Hilton || : It is ordered that the Opinion and Hawaiian Village, - Honolulu, Hawaii; Lo
R - Ti Order of March 30, 1972, is modificd to Indianapolis TIilton, Indianapolis, Indi- SE
a } © “provide that the plaintiffs’ claims in the ana; Kona Hilton, Kona, Hawaii; Ma- ~~ ©
Lo i . action William Colson v. Hilton Ilotels con Hilton, Macon, Georgia; Maui Hil-Co ~~ Corp. et al. (N.D.IIL, Civil Action No. ton, Maui, Hawaii; The New York Hil-
ed —- Ld 71-C-1590), against the following de- ton, New York, New York; Omaha Hil- Sola Lo © fendants are remanded to the Northern ton, Omaha, Nebraska; St. Paul Hilton, =
0 Distelet of tHinols: Bt. Poul, Minnesota: The Duedols Hilton, ©
i. ‘Hilton Hotels Corp. and the follow Sevattah, Georgia; and The Washing-
©: ing subsidiaries and affiliates of Hilton ten Hilton, Washington, ID. C. Colm eee
> = Hotels Corp.: Hotel Waldorf-Astoria 8. The franchisees of the following =
5 © Corp., Hilton Products, Inc., Statler-1Til- hotels and inns licensed by Hilton Hotels
i ~~. lon Studios, Inc., Stetson Club, Inc. (fou- Corporation or any of ils subsidiaries Cu
~._.¢ merly Statler Hilton Court Club, Inc.), ~and affiliates under franchise arrange-.. - :
[rn $s 4 Hilton of Quebec,” Inc., Palmer	- House ment: LET te hE
| : ii" Company, 145 West Elizabeth Street Ga- Seattle Hilton, Seattle; Washington ~~~ ©
| 1 rage Corp., Hilton Inns, Inc. (formerly Hilton Inn of the Palm Beaches, Rivi-
: SERENE Statler Hilton, Inc.), Hilton Service era Beach, Florida = © ~~. DEALT
REE ERT Ta "Corp, International Club of Houston, Hilton Inn, Durham, North Cavolind- ; Ee
. EEE Inc, Hilton-Burns Hotels Company, Inc, Hilton Marina Inn South Siow Cit ELAk ERT A ~Hilton-Burns Xona Partnership, a gener- Nebr MT x Ay, BPE E RE
7h Ba; Ged RE al partnership, International Club of At- 77 aska ETE ES EERE St RL
E ©. 7 oi lanta, Inc, The Sky Riders Club of Fl ‘4. Loews Corporation and its subsidi- =. ~~. ©	= oH Pase, Ine, The New Yorker Hotel Corp., - aries-and affiliates, and the subsidiavies 2
| od ~ Hilton-Uris, Inc.; Mears Hotel Company, and affiliates of cach of them, including, CL
4 . | Hotel Equipment Corp., Rock-Hil-Uris, without limitation, Loew's San Francis-- BE
: : ._ Iuc., Hilton Tours, Inc., International co Hotel Corp., Americana of Bal Har- g
\pdants Hilton Leisure Corp. Flamingo Resort, Tnc., Las bour, Inc., Loew's Summit, Inc, Warwick ~~ Cd
| catan Corp. of Vegas International Hotel, Inc, SPH Ho- Operabing Corp, Loew's Chicago Hotel :Ly emavek Toe tel Company, ‘Holels Statler Company, Corp. 48th St. & 8th Ave. Corp, Hotel Ce
=! el ver hed ia TIC Stevens Hotel Corp, The Beverly Amcricana of New York, Inc, Americana a
p RE i ee IER Fil Lon Corp... 1921 Commerce Garage of Puerto Rico, Inc, 61st & Park Avenue, Co3 district. © Corp, Main& Holcomb Corp, Statler Corp, Squircen Building Cop, 56th & :hl 1 the plain- “Dallas-Corp., Compass Computer Serv- Park Ave, Corp, Loews Tlolels, Inc, oo
+ antiling des ices, Inc, Center Corporation, ITillon Laew's Hotels Reservations, Inc, Locw's :oC ” ©. Beverage Corporation, Hilton Package [Hotels Reservations, Lid, 5st St.& 8th : :

Case MDL No. 89 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 8
776 © 7 341 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT |
Ave. Corp. Loew's Theatre & Realty© Gibson, Inc. Sheraton Cadillac Proper- BET Co
Corp., Loew's Theatres, Inc, and all own- ties, Inc, Chicago Sheraton Corporation, oo
n Cops ml Jezmees of hotels and inns in the Sheraton Palace Corporation, Shevaton: To : i
CA tnited States and Puerto Rico operated Jefferson Corporation, Sheraton Atlanta Co :
i by 1 oewe Corporation or any of its sub- Corporation, Sheraton St. Charles Cor- en .
: : aidinvicd and affiliates whether under poralion, Sheraton Milwaukee Corpora
manancoment agreements or otherwise. tion, Portland Sheraton Corporation, 0 -
: . . Sheraton Dlickstone Corporation, Shera-
5. Rioparck Hotel Co. which oper- 7 N a : por : :	. a. . ton Puerto Rien Corporation. Los An- i
ates the Bismarck Hotel, Chicago, i= : \ Sh :
. ; geles Town Howse Corporation, Governor .. }	nos. . 1 = '
- : Claiborne Apartments, Inc., San Fernan-
~ 6. ITT Sheraton Corporation of do Sheraton Corporation, Sheraton Co- -
America and its subsidiaries and affili- = Jumbus Corporation, Cleveland Sheraton
i ates and its pavent, International Tele- - Corporation, Sheraton Beston Corpora- oo
1 phone and Telegraph Corporation (ITT), tion. Sheraton Plaza Company, Sheraten : .
! and it: subsidiaries and affiliates, and Bani Corporation, Sheraton Hawaii Cov- :
Po the subsidinries of each of the foregoing, poration, Washinzton Sheraton Corpo-
. including, without limitation, Pasadena ration, ITT South Florida Development Co
Pe Sheraton Corporation, Sheraton Russell, Corporation, Airway Lodge of Califor- i
; Ine. St. Reeis Sheraton Corporation, nia, Inc. ITT Consumer Services Corpo-
. Philadelphia Sheraton Corporation, Sher- ration, and all owners and lessees of ho- - oo Co
Ed ~ atan Dayton Corporation, Sheraton tels and inns in the United States and EEE: . tlopston Corporation, Sheraton Dallas Puerto Rico operated by Sheraton or’ ITT EERIE SR
{nrporation, Hudson Sheraton Corpora-. or any of their subsidiaries and affili- = i So
: tion. Hotel Park Sheraton, Inc., Sheraton ates, whether under management agree- co
Fort Worth Corporation, Hotel Sheraton -~ ments or otherwise, : } : ; :
; : : : SE oe Eo . on Lo 2 BS a . N
Sot } SER : Joel ! . } fi
: So . oe :
: Po Sl
! Co BI . :
NE I EE,	{ . : -	i N ‘ .
Co : oo : : ’ To E v :
| ven rm	————oe————————————	er 2 . . FOP . a oo . : . CL .

Case MDL No. 89 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 7 of 8
P KAI 1402-0 i ~ DPERADL SUPPLEMENT | © Ee TE	4 ) EEE reprosent a class eomprised of all minor - Turred to ken District of Peon- LT Cn Len - ooI ily sharcholders of GSC. © sylvania and aged to the flonovalde 0-0 Cees: x rs . Plaintitfs in th Templeton action op- ~ Adoseph S. Lord, fi, for coordinated or Sty So
oo peace teangfer onthe ground that the consolidated prefrial proceedings under
| So © {rust of their [complaint ig aimed 28 U.S.C. § 1407. 3 TT hen
| © againgl GSC and thers who do not have Sa HEE RA! © aurthing to do with Pennco or Penn Cel \ So IE Cot
re Central Transporfation and that, as a . sian : Co ); } feandl, their action has nothing in com- Aad : ER
; © men with the preyiously transferred ac- :
fiona anit they hhve no interest in the © Ce ;
od oo preleiab proceedipgs in the bransferce Ce Lo
2d : C0 abistvict. Their qilempts to distinguish In re TIQTEL VECGEPINUE CHARGE © oo i
: a Co their complaint from the ones filed in ANTVIRUST LITIGATION, Co :
the Williams ard Abernathy actions, Bill Colson v. Hilton IHotels Corp.	cl al. Co -
however, ave not] persuasive. Indeed, a E. D. Missouri, Civil Action ~~ =~ Se
} pompavigon of the three complaints re- oo No. 73 C 43001) Lo
; veals that the allegations in Templeton No. 81. - - a
Ee cand Abernathy que subgtantially identi- “Judicial Panel on Mutidistrict Litigation. ©
pe ) cal and that the kind of relief sought in . April 19, 1974 Ce :
| ab least two coupts of the Williams	ac- a April 19, 197% ne le
= Lion ia similar tg that requested in hoth = Et
| Cs Templeton	and Abernathy. © The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict EE
: © Clearly, in order for-the plaintiffs in Litigation transferved aclion allaging EEE :
X i C Pempleton to jjrevail on their claims “ that hotels and motels hal enpared in oo
TS apaingt GSC anfl ita officers and divee- nationwide conspiracy to increase raom cooEL ho, they will awe to prime disepvery hy udditinnnl Aelephont onevics 7 00
i of Tachial matteps, including GEC rela- chitin tn vlolallen of frderal nuitibrugd EURi. * Lionhip with the Penn Central compa- laws to Central Division	ot California. cL
® nica, that, ave alpeady the subjectof dia- Order accordingly. EO	So “covary “proceedihigs initiated “hy plain- IRE n i se EE ou Sh
ie Cif in Willionds and Abernathy in the i Se :
: heangferee distrjet. In addition, discov. Lo Conds @o230.8 Co
| oie ery involving Pat, Marwick's vole as ac- _Hudicial Panel on Mulidistrict Liti- REL
bo oi TH epuntant for GHC is relevant	not enly to mation will transfer case	to climinale =o
| CTWiltiimp, Abcrinthy and Templeton, bub possibility of inconsictent. class determiTrae : ‘| alse lo the othpr actions	in the coordi- nation. con TTD
| + uated or conenl dated proceedings which © 2, Cowrts &=2172 i - Cl LEa © 0e contain allegatipng of fraudulent conduct + Discretion vested in Judicial Panel Ce en
7 +i "hy Penneo and Pern Central Teangporta- on Multidistrict Litigation fo Avanafer ie ee
og CoCr tion Thing, tdanefer	of the Templeton. actions is unencumbered by. Yet eon= LL
Sa Lo Frau action	to the tasters’ District of Penu- “giderations. 28 USCA 1407. ra Se
Epo 0 sybvania puratant to Section 1407 will ry © re EATER ORE SE RE
win ora expedite the p trial processing of that: fourls SRR Et RE
action and elithinnte nunecessavy dupli- +7+ Action alleging that saveral defend-© 0.0 EE
Co cation of documentary and depoaitional ant hotuls nnd motels enganed Hh. 4 na-. EEE -
CL disenvery, - tienmwide conspiracy to increase pooni oot
| i REA : rates hy addition of telephone service © © 7
It iw therefore ordered that the plain. charges in vielation of federal anbitvmst oo
| Co CLiffs’ molion lo vacate the conditional laws wig Lronsferved for coordinated or Co: : Co lransfer ordet be denied and it is fur consolidaled pretrial proceedings to Cen EE
So i bherd ar dered that the uhove-caplioned “tral District of Californis, where action FORE
a Co action he, and the sume hereby is, beang- raised gnestionn of fact common to ae. SE
, CL. Cs Lb. | : So oo A Co
! Co - [I , . : Co . : . : -

Case MDL No. 89 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 8 of 8
" oo. INREHOV' PHONECHARGEANTITRUSTLITIGATION — 1403. Ft| 4 Si = FR SS Cite	ne 374 F.Supp.	12 (1050) Co : SR IeCC tien previously tranaferved to Central in violation of the federal antitrust bows, 0 0 0 00
SUiey0 District, transfer would Lest serve con- Plaintiff purports to yepresent a class SA
© Svenience of parties and witnesses and consisting of all defendants’ enstomery a ES
| : promote just and efficient conduct of lit- who were wrongfully charred these ad- RE
. ligation and transfer would prevent need- ditional costs. : LL ee B
| wo lene duplication of discovery. 28U.S.C. Defendant Chase Park Plaza nvgues, oo .
CA fun Co “that discovery relating lo its alleged Cor
’ . : BE © wrongdoing will be different from dis. ‘ Co
: : . : i covery concerning the other defendants.Before ALFRED P. MURRATL, Chair- In addition, defendant points “oul, that
| wan, and JOIN MINOR WISDOM, ED- similar claims against Chase Park Plaza :
© WARD WEBINFELD, EDWIN A. ROB- which were previonsly anserted in an ae- Co
SON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH tion pending in the transferee disbrict
i 8. LORD, IIL *, and STANLEY A, WEI- have been dismissed by Judge Lucas be-
GEY, Judges of the Panel. cause of improper vente, Therefore,	de: 0
fendant contends that to transfer this -
; : ~~ OPINION AND ORDER action now to California under Secetion Ce
2 } Co : PER CURIAM. N } 1407 would be unjust. . . ” to
ol i The Panel previously transferved all [1,2] These arguments are nol per- RE
i : I actions in this litigation to the Central ~SUAStVe. Discovery relating to all de-- .
© District of California and, with the con- fendants, including Chase Park Plaza, Ce
| © + sent of that court, assigned them to the will he similar in light of the allegations IE
| : “fonorahle Malcolm M, Lucas for coordi- against them to conspire fo violate the = 0 .
: uated or cousolidated pretrial proceed- federal antitrust Jaws. Thus, transfer
»| ingrat pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1407. In re will prevent needless duplication of dis- :| wy © trata Poluphonie Charge Antitidat Titis COVOry. Auother compelling reason for BSo pation, 841 FBupp. TH (dud. Pan Mult, transfer in to eliminnle thee praibiitity wf oo
! © LiL972)." Since the above-captioned ac- incotisdstent classy determinations. Ti i ENE
: tion appeared to involve factual issues In re Hotel Telephone Charge Antitrust RE oo
common to the previously transferred Ditigation, supra al 772. And we have
! © actions, the Panel issued an order condi- repeatedly held that the Panel's disere, Co
| tionally -trandferring it to the Central tion to transfer actions under section Co
| District of California. Only defendant. 140 { is unencumbered by venue conaitl Ce SR! Co ie Chase Park Plaza Hotel opposes trans- eralions. See, e. ga In re Keutiman Mu Ce
| © UE fer. We find that this action raises tual Fund Actions, 337. F.Supp. 1337; (RENEquestions	of fact common to the actions 1339 (Jud. Pan. Muit.Lit.1972). © STEHT
oo © previously transferred lo the Central xp tig therefore ordered that the = == 77
: i © Digtrict of California and that its trans- aepion entitled Bill Colson v. Hilton Ho-
| © oF fer to that district for coordinated or {ols Corp, cl al, 1Migsouri, Civil Cl	: ~¢.~ consolidated pretrial proceedings will Action No. 75% C 430(1) be, and the same © Siri Od
©, best serve the convenience of the partics porchy js, transferred to the Central Co
9 EE 0 and- witnesses and promote the just and © piatriet of California and, wilh the con- 3: My Er Lon
4 Ca “0 efficient conduct of the litigation... gent of that court, assigned	to the ITon- 7 Si
he complaint in this action containg orable Malcolm M. Lucas for coordinated = PRET
= “allegations that several defendant hotels or consolidated pretrial proceedings with 2 E
and motels engaged in a nationwide con- the actions in the shove-caplioned litipn- ~~ 00 0
: apiracy to increase their room rates by tion which are already pending in that Coe Ee
So the addition of telephone service charges district, oo = : coe
| ) at *Althongh Judge Lord wane unable (o attend the Y'anel hearing, bo han, with the consent of nil Co Ea
| Ce aieiiirHes, prrticlpated fit this declsion. SE : Ca .
UU SE Ce ede : | oC