IN RE: Fotomat Franchisee Litigation

4 CaseMDLNo.204 Document2 Filed05/01/15 Page1of5	LAL PANEL GR
J EULER en -
9 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL REIEE	ON .
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION JUK -4 {87%
IN RE FOTOMAT FRANCHISE ) PATEL LE1SEE DOCKET NO. 202
LITIGATION 2)
OPINION AND ORDER :
: i e ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM *,	EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER,
JOSEPH S. LORD, IXII, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation is comprised of five actions pending
in three different districts: three in the Western District
of Missouri, one in the Southern District of Indiana and one
ro) in the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs in each	~~
action are franchisees of the Fotomat Corporation and allege
"that Fotomat, the sole defendant, violated the federal antitrust
laws in the course of the franchise relationships through tying
arrangements, price fixing and other illegal activities.
In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendant breached the
franchise agreements, breached its fiduciary duty to the fran-
chisees and committed common law conversion, fraud and deceit.
Defendant Fotomat moves the Panel for an order, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407, transferring the four actions pending in
districts other than the Southern District of California to
* Although Judge Wisdom was not present at the hearing,
[ he has, with the consent of all parties, participated	in this decision.

} . Case MDL No. 204 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 5 |
:
® that district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceed-
ings with the action pending there. All plaintiffs oppose
transfer. We find insufficient basis for transfer under Section
1407 and, accordingly, deny the motion. |
| Defendant Fotomat contends that these actions share
common questions of fact concerning its pricing and merchand-
ising policies and its business relations with the franchisees.
Thus, it argues’ that transfer of all actions to a single district
is necessary in order to prevent duplicative discovery and
the possibility of inconsistent pretrial decisions.
Frankly, we are simply not persuaded by defendant's
Qe arguments and, instead, are inclined to agree with plaintiffs’
contention that the various complaints raise factual issues
predominantly unique to each plaintiff's relationship with
defendant, notwithstanding the similarity of the legal issues.
But even assuming that some common factual nexus exists among
these actions, we are satisfied that with respect to this
particular litigation the overall convenience of the parties
and witnesses and the just and efficient conduct of the liti-
gation will not necessarily be enhanced by a Section 1407
transfer.
® |

Co. Case MDL No. 204 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 5
- 3 = :
® Discovery directed toward each plaintiff will be -
unique whether or not we transfer these actions. And any | oo
possibility of duplicative discovery relating to defendant
Fotomat can easily be avoided since plaintiffs represented
to us that they have already embarked on coordinated discovery
efforts and will continue to do so whenever the need arises.
Specifically, plaintiffs informed us that they have planned for
joint examination of defendant's records. Also, if there is ever
any mutual need for a particular deposition, we suggest that
plaintiffs file notices of that deposition in all three district
@ courts involved, thereby making it applicable in each jurisdiction.= Moreover, the parties could stipulate that all discovery may be
used in every action, which seems especially workable here because
all parties have expressed a willingness to streamline pretrial
proceedings. Thus, suitable alternatives to Section 1407 trans-
fer are available.
Furthermore, relatively few actions are involved in
this litigation and counsel advise us that the filing of addi-
tional actions is unlikely. Our denial of transfer, however,
is without prejudice to the right of any party to seek Section 1407
treatment at a later time, should additional actions be filed.
See In re SCM Photocopy Paper Antitrust Litigation, 305 F. Supp.
® 60, 62 (J.P.M.L. 1969); In re Trucking Industry Employment

Case MDL No. 204 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 5
. | = 4 = E
® Practices Litigation, 384 F. Supp. 614, 616 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to transfer
the actions listed on the following Schedule A be, and the same
hereby is, DENIED without prejudice to the right of any party
to move for transfer at a later date, should additional actions
be filed.
eo
® |

Case MDL No. 204 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5
® SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 204	TT i ee ae
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF~ INDIANA
TTT TT Sess Civil Action )
Photovest Corp. v. Potomat Corp. No. IP-74-705~C
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
James C. Glover, et al. v. Fotomat Corp. Civil Action
No. 74-~539-E
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MTSSOURT :
Arthur E. Stutz, et al v. Civil Action
Fotomat Corp. No. 75CV59-W-2
‘Donald M. Ogilvie v. Fotomat Corp. Civil Action
No. 75CV60-W~-1
Griesedieck Enterprises, No. 1, Inc., Civil Action
et al. v. Fotomat Corp. No. 75CV61-W-2