IN RE: "Truckin'" Cartoon Characters Copyright Litigation

. ) Case MDL No. 156 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 4
PANEL ON
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL JDOCP LIGATION	MULTIDISTRIGE!
ON FILED
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
HAR 28 19TH
IN RE "TRUCKIN'" CARTOON CHARACTERS ) DOCKET NO 156 YARD	COPYRIGHT LITIGATION TRIED.E). HOTA
CLERK OF THE PANEL
OPINION 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
In recent years a certain strutting cartoon character
has helped popularize the expression, "Keep on Truckin'!"
Robert Crumb is the originator of that character and holder of
the copyright for its exclusive use. Crumb filed more than
thirty actions in several different districts alleging that cer-
tain manufacturers, distributors and retailers of novelty items
infringed his copyright by making unauthorized use of his charac-
ter design on their varied products.
Plaintiff Crumb moves the Panel for an order trans—
ferring all the infringement actions to the Northern District
of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceed-
ings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Certain defendants in actions
pending on the East Coast oppose transfer. On the basis of the
papers filed and the hearing held, we find that these actions do
not involve common questions of fact and that their transfer
to a single district will neither serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses nor promote the just and efficient conduct
¥ Although Judge Murrah was not present at the hearing,
he has, with the consent of all parties, participated
in this decision.

- Case MDL No. 156 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 4
. -2 -
of the litigation.
Crumb contends that these actions share common questions
of fact concerning the validity and alleged infringement of his
copyright. Thus, he argues that transfer of all the actions to
a single district is necessary to prevent duplicative discovery
and avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial decisions.
These actions have practically nothing in common except
generalized allegations of use of the same "Truckin'" characters.
And that limited common question is not sufficient to warrant
transfer. The main thrust of these actions goes to the issue of
whether the copyright protection extends to the various types of
alleged exploitation. Since defendants market the novelty items
at different levels, and the nature and degree of their use of
the "Truckin'" characters varies widely, discovery in each action
will necessarily focus on individualized conduct.
Although plaintiff asserts the possibility of incon-
sistent pretrial decisions on pending motions to dismiss certain
actions and potential motions for summary judgment, we do not
envision any such problem in this litigation. Those pretrial motions
are each decided on their own facts, and since there are no signif-
icant questions of fact common to these actions, there is no possi-
bility of inconsistent decisions on the motions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer
of the actions listed on the attached Schedule A be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED.

AER Case MDL No. 156 Document2 Filed 05/06/15 Page	3 of 4- SCHEDULE A ~~" DOCKET NO. 156
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Robert Crumb v. Peterson Publishing Co. Civil Action
Co No. C-73-910-ACW
‘
Robert Crumb v. Saladin Products Inc. Civil Action
: | No. C-73-913-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Postermania, et al. Civil Action
No. C=73-914-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Universal Poster Co. Civil Action
: No. C=73-915~ACW
Robert Crumb v. Avante Industries, Inc. Civil Action
No. C=-73-916-~ACW
Robert Crumb v. Platt Manufacturing Co., Civil Action
Inc. No. C-73-917-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Rader Products Civil Action
. No. C-73-919-ACW
"Robert Crumb v. Star City Distributors, Civil Action
Inc. No. C-73-920-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Sunset Marketing, Inc. Civil Action
: No. C-=73-921-ACW
Robert Crumb v. J. C., Penney, Inc. ‘Civil Action
iE No. C=73-1365-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Crazy Shirts, Inc. | Civil Action
| No. C=73-923-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Margal of California, Inc. Civil Action
d/b/a Sun Valley Imports "No. C-73-1366-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Phillip Giadoni & Dora Costa Civil Action
d/b/a The Alley No, C-73-1367-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Sunset House : Civil Action
: No. C=73-1368-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Allan	H. Minsky d/b/a New Civil Action
Humor Co. . Co. No. C=73-1440-~-ACW
A

foe Case MDL No. 156 Document2 Filed 05/06/15 Page	4 of 4
"SCHEDULE	A -W -2 - © DOCKET NO. 156
Robert Crumb v. Robert Yamaski Civil Action |Co : ~ No. C=73-1587-ACW
Robert Crumb v. Lang Distributors Inc. Civil Action :
Co : I ‘No, C-73-1588-ACW. aN
Robert Crumb v. Dallas Cap & Emblem, Inc. Civil Action i oo
| . | | No. C=-73-2102-SW
' - -
Robert Crumb	v. Mike Roberts Color Civil Action
Productions, Inc. Co No. C=73-2100-SC
: i Robert Crumb	v. Paul Marshall Products Civil Action :: : No. C-=73-2102
© Robert Crumb v. A.A. Sales | ~ Civil Action
: No. C-73-2103-0JC
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA oo :
Robert Crumb v. Jerrold Chrome Products Co. Civil ActionNo. 73-2373
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 0 !
Robert Crumb v. Spartan Plastics : Civil Action :
. No. G=239-73-CA
| DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS or “oo
Robert Crumb v. Ampersand Gifts, Inc., et al. Civil Action
: No. CA-73-3625G |
DISTRICT OF COLORADO BE :
Robert Crumb v. Far-Out Unlimited Civil Action
| | | No. C-5490 |
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS oo oo
Robert Crumb v. Adams Apple Distributing Co. Civil Action
Co ~, No. 73C3017 -
SE DISTRICT	OF NEW JERSEY RB oo
_ Robert Crumb v. Essex Products, Inc. | Civil Action E
; - oo No. 1607-73