IN RE: 7-Eleven Franchise Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 97 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 8
® gr ET ee
[a [EI i : gE |
DOCKET NO, 97
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE 7-ELLVEN FRANCHISE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
ORDER
It appearing that all parties tc the actions
listed on the attached Schedule A agree on the desirabil=
ity. of transferring these actions to the Northern
District of California for cocrdinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the
actions pending in that district and the Panel having
found, on the basis of the papers submitted and the
hearing held, that the actions involve common questions
of fact and that transfer would serve the convenience of
( the parties and witnesses and would further the justand efficient conduct of the litigation,
IT IS ORDERED that the actions listed on the
attached Schedule A and pending in districts other than
the Northern District of California be, and the same
hereby are, transferred to the Northern District of
California, and with the consent of that Court, assigned
to the Honorable Robert S. Schnacke for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407
with the actions listed on Schedule A and pending in
that district.
FOR THE PANEL:
/
LAA AA : wis
lfred P. Murrah
Chairman

Case MDL No. 97 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 8
--
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 97
—————— ——————e
® NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Robert Miner, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 46865
Elmer Fernandes, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-594-RHS
Gordon Bechard, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-677-RHS
Joseph Romeo, et ux v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-1369-RHS
Ray Wellman, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-1462-RHS
Stephen Nicholson, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-1467-RHS
Darrell Oman, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-1564-RHS.
Harry Phippen, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70~1593-RHS
® Jay Mills, et ux. v. The Southland Corp., Civil Actionet al. No. C-70-1628-RHS
Charles Bell, et ux v. The Southland Corp., Civil Action
et al. No. C~-70-2533-RHS
Cres Blasquez, et ux v. The Southland Corp., Civil Action
et al. No. C-70-2534-RHS
Calvin Buck, et ux. v. The Southland Corp., Civil Action
et al. No. C-70-2535-RHS
Kenneth Dunn, et ux v. The Southland Corp., Civil Action
et al. No. C-70-2536-RHS
Warren Dunn, et ux. v. The Southland Corp., Civil Action
et al. No. C=70-2537-RHS
Eldon Easter, et ux v. The Southland Corp., Civil Action
et al. No. C-70-2538-RHS
Bernard Flood, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. : No. C-70-2539-RHS
® Donald Freeman, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action	Ww Corp.,	et al. No. C-70-2540-RHS:
Joseph Herbst, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-2541

Case MDL No. 97 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 8
SCHEDULE A -2- DOCKET NO. 97
C NORTHERN DISTRICT QF CALIFORNIA (CONT'D)
Edward Holderfield, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-2542-RHS
Robert Houck v. The Southland Corp., et al. Civil Action
No. C-70-2543-RHS
George Lee v. The Southland Corp., et al. Civil Action
No. C-70-2544-RHS
Robert Lucero, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-2545-RHS
Richard Martin, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-2546-RHS
Douglas McKinney, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-2547-RHS
Cecil Miller, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-2548-RHS
Wright Simpson, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
® Corp., et al. No. C-70-2549-RHSEdward Tomac, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-2550-RHS
Benny Toms, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-70-2551-RHS
Dale Wright, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Coro., et al. No. C-70-2552-RHS
Irene Brackett v. The Southland Corp., Civil Action
et al. No. C-71-1-RHS
Ralph Wilson, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C=-71-102~RHS
Fred Orloff, et al. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-71-257-RHS
David Vaughn, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C=71-265~RHS
Louis Kruse, et ux v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-71-329-RHS
® Dennis Meydam v. The Southland Corp., Civil Action	- et al. No. C-71-330-RHS
Fred Turnier, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. ho. C-71-633-RHS

Case MDL No. 97 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 8
SCHEDULE A -3- DOCKET NO. 97
[ NGOGRTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CONT'D)
~ James A. Piper, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-71-2406-RHS
Skander Sarkis, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-71-2407-RHS
Vincent J. Wiegel, et ux. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C-71-2408-RHS
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Joseph D'Amore, Jr. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp. No. 71-2764
Robert Hornbaker, et al. v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp. No. 72-149
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
William A. Sullivan v. The Southland Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 71-1709-CIV-CA

Case MDL No. 97 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 8
. aro mA on a } : :
| ol RR So
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL So eT
ON rR 25 1973 SHEN
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION on SEIT WL J REEF ' BER . tL
CRs ey So
INCE EEL Rakha oo SU ..
IN RE 7~-ELEVEN FRANCHISE )
ANTITRUST LITIGATION ’ DOCKET NO. 97
Morris & Dora Cohen, et al. v. )
The Southland Corp., E.D. Pa., )
Civil Action No. CA-72-1777 ) Ce
OPINION AND ORDER FETE
J, Lo ~~ Co ’
40BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, a alEDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, Co i
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL Co
PER CURIAM | oo
The Panel ordered the parties in this litigation
to show cause why the above-captioned action should not be
transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the Northern District Co
of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceed-
ings with the actions previously transferred to that district -
and assigned to the Honorable Robert H. Schnacke. Defendant . oo
favors transfer of the action to that district, while the RE
Cohen plaintiffs oppose transfer. The parties waived their oo
right to oral argument and we have concluded from the papers
filed that the Cohen action must be transferred for pretrial )
proceedings with the actions now pending in the Northern District ’ .
of california. oo . -
Plaintiffs in the consolidated actions are present or
former franchisees of defendant Southland. They allege that

Case MDL No. 97 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 8
Southland violated the federal antitrust laws in connection with
agreements and practices pertaining to the operation of 7-Eleven
convenience retail grocery stores. Certain of the consolidated
actions contained Rule 23 class allegations, but the transferee
judge has unconditionally denied plaintiffs' requests for class
action treatment. In re 7-Eleven Franchise Antitrust Litigation,
— F. Supp.——(N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 10, 1972). The allegations
in the Cohen complaint are similar to those asserted in the
previously transferred actions and plaintiffs purport to repre-
sent a class of 7-Eleven franchisees in a limited geographical area.
The Cohen plaintiffs oppose transfer on the ground
that their action involves only local issues and that their
9 discovery will not duplicate that supervised by the transferee court.
In addition, plaintiffs urge that transfer should be denied on the
basis of the transferee judge's finding that the consolidated
actions lacked sufficient commonality of facts to warrant class
action treatment.
The arguments in opposition to transfer are not persuasive.
The criteria for a class determination pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are different from the
criteria for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. We have
examined the Cohen complaint and find that it raises questions
of fact common to the previously transferred actions concerning
alleged unlawful practices which defendant Southland engaged in
PS with respect to current and former 7-Eleven franchisees.

Case MDL No. 97 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 8
® = 3 =
It is clear, therefore, that the discovery pursued in Cohen
will be similar to the discovery contemplated by plaintiffs
in the actions pending in the transferee court and we are satis-
fied that transfer of the Cohen action will serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and will promote the just and effici-
ent conduct of the litigation. And we point out that the trans-
feree court can easily devise a discovery schedule to accommodate
plaintiffs' desire to pursue local discovery not common to
the other actions.
There is an additional reason favoring transfer of
this action. In an action previously transferred by the Panel
to the Northern District of California for coordinated or conso-
® lidated pretrial proceedings, plaintiffs' request to represent
a class of 7-Eleven franchisees in a limited geographical area
was denied by the transferee court. Plaintiffs in Cohen also
seek to represent a class of 7-Eleven franchisees in a specified
geographical area and it appears that plaintiffs' opposition to
transfer centers upon their dissatisfaction with the class action
ruling of the transferee court. We have frequently held that
the possibility for conflicting class action determinations
is an important factor favoring transfer of an action under
Section 1407. See, e.g., In re Texas Gulf Sulphur Securities
Litigation, 344 F. Supp. 1398 (J.P.M.L. 1972). And we have also
held that the prospect of an unfavorable ruling by the transferee
® court or the possibility that another district judge may be more
favorably disposed to a litigant's contentions are clearly not
factors considered by the Panel in determining whether transfer

Case MDL No. 97 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	8 of 8
- - 4 -
@ under Section 1407 is appropriate. In re Texas Gulf Sulphur
Securities Litigation, supra at 1400. See also In re Motion
Picture "Standard Accessories" and "Pre-Vues" Antitrust Litigation,
339 F. Supp. 1278, 1280 (J.P.M.L. 1972).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action Morris and Dora
Cohen, et al. v. The Southland Corporation, E.D. Pa., Civil Action
No. CA-72-1777, be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the
Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §1407 and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert H.
Schnacke for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the actions pending in that district.
@
®