IN RE: Sheffield Furniture Corporation Patent Litigation

oc Case MDL No. 309 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 12
| RTALAR CANS] ol
: STIG SN
DOCKET NO. 309 TESTE Loo =
. 3 .
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATI(NR 23 1377 qT, CL: PATE I * Till Aaks ~ Co
IN RE SHEFFIELD FURNITURE CORPORATION PATENT LITIGATION	IAA Jr {HIF hEL a -
CORRECTION ORDER
Inasmuch as we have been advised that a certain action TE EP :
was omitted from the Panel order filed on September 12, 1977, AE TET
IT IS ORDERED that the order and the Schedule A attached Ce oo
thereto be and the same are hereby CORRECTED as follows: . TE EE
Order, footnote 1, delete Nine and insert Eight.
Schedule A -- Insert immediately following the last
action listed under the Central District of California : Co
an action entitled Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Skelly & ~
Anderson Furn. Mfg. Co., Civil Action No. CV77-10L15-DWW :
FOR THE® PANEL: )
, /» - / Z : ’ . Co }
| Ero a : oo' Ee AIEEE OS : .
Patricia D. Howard CL Co
Clerk of the Panel

= . “Case MDL No. 309 Document? Filed 05/04/15 Page	2 of 12
» | DOCKET NO. 309 os =
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION rm 53SH BPE
IN RE SHEFFIELD FURNITURE CORPORATION PATENT LITIGATION" 5 _=f,
TRANSFER ORDER ZB Uo
mln 2
It appearing that all parties to the actions listed on
the attached gohedule 1 agree on the desirability of, or =	do not opposeZ, transferring the actions pending in districts
other than the Central District of California to that
district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending
in that district before Judge David W. Williams, and the
Panel having found upon consideration of the papers submitted
that these actions involve common questions of fact and that
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and wit-
nesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation,
IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in
districts other than the Central District of california be,
and the same hereby are, transferred to that district and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
LJ David W. Williams for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the actions pending in that district and
listed on Schedule A. :
FOR THE PANEL:
Sh Moor	Mao is
John Minor Wisdom
Chairman
1/ Eight other actions originally listed in the Panel's
order to show cause regarding this litigation have been
terminated.
2/ At the request of one of the counsel for the common
plaintiff in the actions on Schedule A, the Panel has
deferred action for a 60-day period, now elapsed, in order
that counsel for the parties might complete pending settle-
ment negotiations.
en ER Ted ET IRINA TE :
@® BOL Ty J| ad	isath 1 Bal

an Bn Case MDL No. 309 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 12
~gchédule A DOCKET NO. 309
® CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sheffield Furn. Corp. Vv. R. B. Furniture Civil Action
No. 77-1012-DWW
sheffield Furn. Corp. Vv. Riviera Con- Civil Action
vertibles No. 77-1013-DWwW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. Vv. Royal Pacific Civil Action
Furniture Mfg. Co. No. 77-1014-DWW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Town House Mfg. Civil Action
Co. No. 77-1020-DWW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. William Volker Civil Action
& Co. No. 77-1021-DWW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Style Crest of Civil Action
California, Inc. No. 77-1023-DWW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Capitol Furniture Civil Action
No. 77-1059-DWwW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Brand Furn. Civil Action
® Manufacturing Co. No. 77-0999-DWW- Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Cal Custom ‘Civil Action
Furn. Manufacturing No. 77-1000-DWw
Sheffield Furn. Corp. Vv. Coleman of Civil Action
California No. 77-1008~DWW
Sheffield Faro. Corp. v. Skelly	& Anderson Civil Action+ tg. Lo. No. 77-1015-DwWw
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Sheffield Furn Corp. v. Kin a.	x . - Ve. gsley Civil Acti
Manufactu on
ring Co. No. 77C1158
Sheffield Furn. i sr :
Furniture Corp. v. Covington Civil ActionNo. 77Cl157
| DISTRICT	OF ARIZONA
Sheffield co.
Co. Fuarn. Corp. v. Lunn Furn. Mfg. Civil ActionNo. 77-258-CAM
CoV TE VRE
ERLE Ch I BY	And H{dpdd 7; “I:
® RECIRCIS MEY NC):

Case MDL No. 309 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 12
oo DOCKET NO. 309 25 & : oo oo
52 on == . .
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGAT®ONM CAE . Ce EeSi =55 oh
IN RE SHEFFIELD FURNITURE CORPORATION PATENT LITIGATION ~N [8&5 FL
<= = p= N
TRANSFER ORDER Ee UL
It appearing that #1 parties to the actions listed on 5the attached gghedule 1 agree on the desirability of, or o oodo not opposeZ; transferring the actions pending in districts Co Cn
other than the Central District of California to that Cee
district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 for coordinated or ET I
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending cel
in that district before Judge David W. Williams, and the SUS
Panel having found upon consideration of the papers submitted Co Co
that these actions involve common questions of fact and that oo
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and wit- Co
nesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this ¥ ia :litigation, 7 CoIT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the . : ~
actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in 0
districts other than the Central District of california be, oo Coe
and the same hereby are, transferred to that district and, :
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
David W. Williams for coordinated or consolidated pretrial i :
proceedings with the actions pending in that district and
listed on Schedule A. [EE :
FOR THE PANEL: CL
SD Woe is | |	: : Mara, WISHES : oo
John Minor Wisdom co
Chairman
1/ Nine other actions originally listed in the Panel's Sl
order to show cause regarding this litigation have been
terminated.
2/ At the request of one of the counsel for the common
plaintiff in the actions on Schedule A, the Panel has .
deferred action for a 60-day period, now elapsed, in order
that counsel for the parties might complete pending settle-
ment negotiations. Co

Case MDL No. 309 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 5 of 12
pSchedule A DOCKET NO. 309
(1) CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. R. B. Furniture Civil Action
No. 77-1012~DwWw
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Riviera Con- Civil Action
vertibles No. 77-1013-DWW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Royal Pacific Civil Action
Furniture Mfg. Co. No. 77-1014-DwWW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Town House Mfg. Civil Action :
Co. No. 77-1020-Dww
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. William Volker Civil Action
& Co. No. 77-1021-DWwW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Style Crest of Civil Action
California, Inc. No. 77-1023-DWwW
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Capitol Furniture Civil Action
: No. 77-1059-DWw
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Brand Furn. Civil Action
Manufacturing Co. No. 77-0999-pww
® Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Cal Custom Civil Action
Furn. Manufacturing No. 77-1000~DWw
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Coleman of Civil Action
California No. 77-1008~DWwW
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Kingsley Civil Action
Manufacturing Co. No. 77C1158
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Covington Civil Action
Furniture No. 77C1157
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sheffield Furn. Corp. v. Lunn Furn. Mfg. Civil Action
Co. No. 77-258-CAM

Case MDL No. 309 Document 2 ‘Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 12
: DOCFLT IO. S12 ~~ 03 Co I
iT = So Co co
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGAEONS =a
: SE = == ; .
TI i TIE . . . Lo
TPE RRFORED CAR ANTITRUST LITICZATICY E> =O } . EERE
SB = ow Lot N . ER .
TRANSFER ORDER : Zi ==
: mE 2 BNE
Faal™ prises . o. .
The Panel having ruled from the bench at the hearing oo
on this matter that the actions in this litigation raise RY 7/4	commicn questions of fact and that their transfer to the 7 Le
liorthern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. §1407 will Cie	ia toe Te
best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses JE TEE EES
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, EERE Lo
IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1407, the actions : oo
listed con the attached Schedule A and pending in districts
other than the Northern District of Georgia ke, and the same
hereby are, transferred to the Northern District of Georgia
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
_ Richard	C. Freeman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial . . Cr
proceedings with the actions already pending there and listed oH -
on Schedule A. } = = y ) Co
FOR THE PANEL: :
3 . i , .	-~
ops i *
0 1 A “rm La YP2anFv 2c eed ve Le :
John Minor Wisdom i
Chairman B
Attachment

Case MDL No. 309 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of 12
Rd
- SCHEDULE A :
. DOCKET NO. 318 |
Q ZASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Weston L. Sampson T/A Sampson Beverage Co. Civil Action
v. Brink's Inc., et al. : No. 77-2828
Sunshine Stores, Inc. v. Brink's Inc., Civil Action :
et al. No. 77-2986
Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Brink's : civil Action
Iinc,, et al. No, 77-2642
SOUTHERN DISTRICT QF NEW YORK oo ‘
Sunnydale Farms, Inc. v, Brink's Inc., Civil Action :
et al. No. 77 Civ. 3517 |
State of Ccnnecticut v. Brink's Inc., Civil Action 5
et al. : No. 77 Civ. 3689
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Civil Action
Brink's Inc., et al. - No. 77 Civ. 3516
Hillman's Inc., et al. v. Brink's © Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 77 Civ. 3153
-Q NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS :
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., Civil Action ;
et al. v. Brink's Inc., et al. No. 77C3149
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA : :
Food Fair Stores, Inc., et al. v. Civil Action !
Brink's Inc., et al. : No. C77-1246A E
Raley's Inc. v. Brink's Inc., et al. Civil Action |
No. C77-1273A ]
LDC, inc., et al. v. Brink's Inc., et al. Civil Action
No. C77-1294A
Biscayne Bank, et al. v. Brink's Inc., et al. Civil Action
No. C77-1363A )
Liberty Coin Shop, Inc. v. Brink's Inc., Civil Action
et al. No. C77-1412a
i
i
1
{
| |i

Co Case MDL No. 309 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 8 of 12 |
ry IL 2;
Au THPars, , . i ~ aE	: ~~ [ral Ans on : oo E Ce
: BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL '°// [SE So
ON CT
DEC ,q oo :
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, /9 197, . . Co	AT, - RE
ClendiCis | . oo .
IN RE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ENGINE LAX, (~BOCKET NO. 308 . Co
INTERCHANGE LITIGATION ) = ral A
) :
Harold Hensley v. General Motors Corp., ) :
W.D. Virginia, C.A. No. 77-0030 )
Howard Tutwiler v. General Motors ) .
corp., N.D. Alabama, C.A. No. )
77-P-11438 ) 19977 ERE
OPINION AND ORDER I EIR
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A, ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, -
ANDREW A. CAFFREY AND ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM Lo Co g
The Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, previously : ERE
transferred several actions in this litigation to the
Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Frank J. McGarr Co .
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with .
related actions pending in that district. In re General :
Motors Corporation Engine Interchange Litigation, MDL-308 EEE
(J.P.M.L., July 11, 1977) (unpublished order). a EE
General Motors Corporation is a defendant in all IE FE
actions in the transferee district, and local Oldsmobile :
dealers are also defendants in two of the actions
there. Judge McGarr has certified a plaintiff class : :
in those actions consisting of all persons in the United
* Judge Lord took no part in the decision of this matter.

- Case MDL No. 309 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	9 of 12
C States (other than General Motors, its subsidiaries andaffiliates) who purchased 1977 Oldsmobiles and who received
Oldsmobiles which, without their knowledge or consent,
contained V-8 engines manufactured by the Chevrolet Motor
Division of General Motors. In addition, plaintiffs in
the Blackman action in the transferee district seek to
represent a statewide class of persons who purchased 1977
Buicks and who received Buicks which, without their
knowledge or consent, contained engines manufactured by
divisions of General Motors other than Buick. The com-
plaints in the transferee district generally are proceeding
on the allegation that General Motors and the other
+ defendants breached warranties by marketing certain
C automobiles from a General Motors' division without dis-
closing that each of those automobiles contained an engine
manufactured by a different division of General Motors.
Plaintiffs in the Levine action in the transferee district
also allege that defendants' conduct constituted violations
of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts.
The first above-captioned action (Hensley) has been
brought against General Motors by an individual who alleges
that he purchased a 1977 Buick and later discovered that
it contained an Oldsmobile engine. Plaintiff in Hensley
charges General Motors with fraud, deceptive business
practices, and breach of contract.
® The second above-captioned action (Tutwiler) has beenbrought against General Motors on behalf of a purported

. . Case MDL No. 309 Documgnt+2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 10 of 12
nationwide class consisting of all persons who purchased
C 1976 and/or 1977 cadillac Sevilles containing Oldsmobileengines. Plaintiff charges General Motors with fraud,
misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and violations
of the federal antitrust laws.
Since Hensley and Tutwiler appeared to share
questions of fact with the previously transferred
actions, the Panel entered orders conditionally transferring
these actions to the Northern District of Illinois for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.” Plaintiff in Tutwiler opposes transfer
of that action. General Motors opposes transfer of both
actions.
We find that Hensley and Tutwiler share questions |
@® of fact with the previously transferred actions and
that transfer of these two actions to the Northern District
of Illinois under Section 1407 will best serve the con-
venience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The parties opposing transfer contend that even if
Hensley, Tutwiler and the actions in the transferee
district share some factual questions ofa general nature,
the vast majority of factual issues will not be common.
These parties assert that the actions in the transferee
district primarily involve the substitution of Chevrolet
engines in Oldsmobiles, and that discovery in those actions
C will center around the Oldsmobile division of General
1/ See Rule	9, R.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D. 253, 259-60 (1975).

. . Case MDL No. 309 pocument 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 11 of 12
o Motors. In contrast, these parties urge, discovery in
Hensley will center around the Buick division of General
Motors and discovery in Tutwiler will center around the
Cadillac division of General Motors. These parties maintain
that discovery in each type of action will be largely distinct
because each division has its own design, engineering,
marketing and advertising staffs.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Since one
action in the transferee district already includes claims
on behalf of purchasers of 1977 Buicks that contained
engines manufactured by divisions of General Motors other
than Buick, Hensley clearly involves common questions of
fact with at least that action. Moreover, on the basis
@® of the record before us, we are persuaded that both
Hensley and Tutwiler share questions of fact with each
other and with the previously transferred actions con-
] cerning overall corporate policies of General Motors
and interrelationships among General Motors' divisions.
In these circumstances, a single judge with an overall
perspective of Hensley, Tutwiler and the previously trans-
ferred actions will be in the best position to prevent
duplicative discovery, eliminate any possibility of
conflicting pretrial rulings and conserve time and effort
for the parties, the witnesses and the judiciary. Of course,
the transferee judge has the broad discretion to design a
[ pretrial program that will allow discovery on any unique
issues in particular actions to proceed concurrently with

. - Case MDL No. 309 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 12 of 12
: -5 - |
o discovery on common issues. See In re Republic National-
Realty Equities Securities Litigation, 382 F. Supp. 1403,
1405-06 (J.P.M.L. 1974). oo
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the actions entitled Harold Hensley v. General Motors
Corporation, W.D. Virginia, C.A. No. 77-0030, and Howard
Tutwiler v. General Motors Corporation, N.D. Alabama, C.A.
~ No. 77-P-1143s, be, and the same hereby are, transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable Frank J. McGarr
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions previously transferred to that district.
oo
®