IN RE: Federal Election Campaign Act Litigation

Case MDL No. 372 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 9
s JUDIRIAL Page : So
MULTICISTRIET Li PanFILED SS EE
JUN-T 1873 /5 RE	BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL on Z 777
ON PATRICIAD, HOWARD 2 CeMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION CERRO THEFANEL So
IN RE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ) DOCKET NO. 372 . :
ACT LITIGATION )
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE MURRAY I. GURFEIN, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWIN A. ROBSON, So
STANLEY A. WEIGEL,* ANDREW A. CAFFREY, ROY W. HARPER, AND TE
CHARLES R. WEINER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. : So
PER CURIAM
This litigation presently consists of nineteen actions
pending in eighteen districts as follows: :
District of the District of Columbia 2 Co
Northern District of Alabama 1 i co
Eastern District of Arkansas 1
District of Colorado 1 nL
Southern District of Iowa 1 :
District of Kansas 1
Western District of Kentucky 1 - Sn
District of Maine 1 oo
District of Massachusetts 1 :
Eastern District of Michigan 1
District of Minnesota 1
District of New Jersey 1
District of Rhode Island 1 .
District of South Carolina 1 RE
District of South Dakota 1 SE
Western District of Texas 1 Co : oe
Eastern District of Virginia 1 :
Northern District of West Virginia 1
The two actions in the District of the District of | i
Columbia were brought against the Federal Election Commission To
(FEC) in November, 1978, by Henry L. Walther (Walther),
‘pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a) (9). That provision authorizes
a party aggrieved by an FEC administrative dismissal to ||
* Judge Weigel took no part in the decision of this
matter. ]

EU ces ere - SE PR i
Case MDL No. 372, Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 9 a
1 file suit in the District of the District of Columbia.+/ In So
2 these two actions Walther alleges that the FEC acted contrary
3 to law in dismissing a total of forty-five administrative A
4 complaints that Walther and the National Right to Work Committee
had filed with the FEC under the Federal Election Commission
5
Act. Each administrative complaint had charged a different Co LL
6 -
candidate for public office and his principal campaign committee RE,
7 with violating federal law by accepting from affiliated labor Ce
8 organizations political contributions which exceeded the maximum
9 contribution permitted by 2 U.S.C. §441(a)(2) of $5,000 per
10 primary and general election. The monetary limits would have
11 been exceeded if the FEC accepted Walther's contention that : so
contributions from the AFL-CIO and/or its individual member oo
L2
unions should be added together and treated as emanating from :
L3 . .
a single political committee. Co
L4 : :
5 1/ 2 U.S.C. §437(a)(9) provides in full: :
(9) (A) Any party aggrieved by an order of the :
.6 Commission dismissing a complaint filed by such
party under paragraph (1), or by a failure on :
7 the part of the Commission to act on such com- |
plaint in accordance with the provisions of this ’
8 section within 90 days after the filing of such } RA
: complaint, may file a petition with the United oo C0
States District Court for the District of Columbia.
9 (B) The filing of any petition under
subparagraph (A) shall be made
0 (i) in the case of the dismissal of a
complaint by the Commission, no later than 60 .
1 days after such dismissal; or 3
(ii) in the case of a failure on the part
of the Commission to act on such complaint, no
2 later than 60 days after the 90-day period
: specified in subparagraph (A).
3 (C) In any proceedings under this paragraph
the court may declare that the dismissal of the
a complaint or the action, or the failure to act,
is contrary to law and may direct the Commission to
5 proceed in conformity with such declaration within30 days, failing which the complainant may bring
in his own name a civil action to remedy the
violation involved in the original complaint. } }
FPI--MAR—3-27.79-6M-1781
i

Case MDL No. 372 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	3 of 9
-3-
1 |
® 2 All other actions in this docket were brought, also by
3 Walther, against many of the individual candidates and their
4 campaign committees that were the respondents in the complaints
5 filed with the FEC. In each of these actions, an individual
6 candidate and his principal campaign committee are accused of
the same substantive violations of federal election law that
-
Walther leveled against that candidate and committee before the
8
FEC, and Walther seeks an order directing defendants to return
9 all sums of money unlawfully received.
10 The FEC moves the Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 to
11 centralize all actions ir this litigation in the District of
12 : the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated
®: pretrial proceedings .2’ Defendants in thirteen of the individuacandidate actions support transfer of their respective actions
14
to the District of the District of Columbia. Walther opposes
15 transfer.
16 , . . .
We find that these actions involve common questions of fact
17 and that centralization of these actions in the District of the
18 District of Columbia under Section 1407 will serve the
19 convenience of the parties and witnesses and prcmote the just
20 and efficient conduct of the litigation.
21
22 _— . . £
2/ Three additional actions included in the motion for transfer
23 "have been dismissed -- Henry L. Walther v. Congressman Max
Baucus,	et al., D. Mont., C.A. No. 78-88-M; Henry L. Walther
v. Joseph Biden, et al., D. Del., C.A. No. 78-473; and
oO Henry L. Walther v., Wendell Anderson, et al., D. Minn.,25 C.A. No. 4-78-522. Consideration of the question of transfer
with respect to these actions is therefore moot. |{
FPI-MAR~—3.27.79.6M.1781

Case MDL No. 372 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 4 of 9 .
1 N
2 Walther argues that the predominating common questions am
3 these actions will be legal, rather than factual, and that the
4 prerequisites for transfer under Section 1407 are not satisfied.
5 He urges that many factual questions will be unique to each
action, including the degree of knowledge of the candidates
° and their staffs regarding the extent of formal and informal
’ affiliation among the differing labor organizations involved
8 in each action. Walther also disputes that centralization under
9 Section 1407 of all actions in the District of Columbia would
10 be convenient for individual defendant candidates and campaign
11 officials, and he contends that most witnesses and records will
12 be found in the districts in the state where each candidate
13 sought office. Walther expresses his willingness to bear any
inconvenience to which he, as the only party involved in all
14 actions, might be subjected.
15 We find these arguments unpersuasive. In each action, key
16 factual inquiry will focus upon the structure of the AFL-CIO
17 and the activities of its officials in order to determine
18 whether the AFL-CIO commonly established, financed, maintained
19 or controlled the political activities of its member labor
20 organizations. Transfer under Section 1407 is thus necessary
in order to avoid duplication of discovery and prevent incon-
21 sistent pretrial rulings regarding these common factual
22 ~ questions. The transferee judge, of course, has the authority
23 to schedule any discovery that is unique to particular parties,
24 claims or actions to proceed concurrently with the common
25 |
FPI-MAR—3.27.79.6M.1781
|

Case MDL No. 372 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	5 of 9
n i.
C1
@. discovery, thereby permitting the litigation to proceed
3 expeditiously in all areas. See In re Multi-Piece Rim Products
4 Liability Litigation, 464 F. Supp. 969, 974 (J.P.M.L. 1979).
5 Walther's assertion that individual defendant candidates
and campaign officials would be seriously inconvenienced by
° centralization under Section 1407 is belied by the fact that
7 no defendant has opposed transfer and defendants in thirteen of
8 the individual actions have affirmatively registered their
9 support for transfer. Moreover, witnesses can expect to be
10 deposed near where they reside. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(2).
11 As the only party common to all actions, Walther might very well
12 be subjected to greater expense than any other single party if
transfer under Section 1407 were denied in this docket. His
Cj willingness to assume those additional costs does not render
14 transfer unnecessary, however, because the Panel must weigh the
15 interests of all the plaintiffs and all the defendants and must
16 consider multidistrict litigation as a whole in light of the
17 purposes of the law. See In re Library Editions of Children's
18 Books Antitrust Litigation, 297 F. Supp. 385, 386 (J.P.M.L.
19 1968). The benefits of transfer in this docket will not accrue
20 solely to Walther, for it is most logical to assume that prudent
counsel for the individual defendants and the FEC will apportion
24 their workload in order to streamline the efforts of all parties
22 and witnesses, counsel and the judiciary, thereby effectuating
23 | an overall savings of cost and a minimum of inconvenience to
all concerned. See In re Nissan Motor Corporation Antitrust
¢ Litigation, 385 F. Supp. 1253, 1255 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
FPI~MAR——3.27.79.6M-1781

Case MDL No. 372 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 6 of9 )
> —6-
1 :
2 Furthermore, several defendants represent that in
3 a number of the actions in this docket similar motions to
4 dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction have been
5 filed. Transfer under Section 1407 at the present time
will permit a single judge to consider these motions and
© thus will have the salutary effect of promoting judicial
7 economy and. avoiding inconsistent adjudications regarding
8 this particular issue. See In re King Resources Company
9 Securities Litigation, 385 F. Supp. 588, 590 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
10 The District of the District of Columbia is clearly
11 the most appropriate transferee forum for this litigation.
12 Many of the candidates are United States senators or represent-
3 atives with offices in Washington, D.C.; the AFL-CIO is
: headquartered in Washington, D.C.; Walther resides in a
14 Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C.; and the FEC is located
15 in Washington, D.C. Thus many parties and relevant documents
16 and witnesses will be found	in the metropolitan Washington,
17 D.C. area. See In re Investors Funding Corporation of New
18 York Securities Litigation, 437 F. Supp. 1199, 1203 (J.P.M.L.
19 1977). Also, the District of the District of Columbia is
20 the court in which Congress expressly authorized actions
to be brought under the Federal Election Campaign Act against
24 the FEC. ~
22
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
23 §1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and
24 pending in districts other than the District of the District
25
FPI-MAR-—3.27.79.6M.1781

. Case MDL No. 372 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	7 of 9
Lo
I!
@. of Columbia be, and the same hereby are, transferred to
3 the District of Columbia and, with the consent of that court,
4 assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Richey for coordinated
. or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions listed
on Schedule A and pending in that district.
6
7 |
8
9 .
10
11
12
@14
15
16
17 :
18
19
20
21 |22
23 |
@ FPI~MAR~—3.27.78.6M.178! |

Case MDL No. 372 Document2 Filed 05/18/15 Page	8 of 9*
¢ 1
® 2 DOCKET NO. 372SCHEDULE A
3 3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Civil Action No.
4 Henry L. Walther Vv. Donald Stewart, CA78M1265E
et al.
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
6
Henry L. Walther v. James Guy Tucker, LR-C-78-445
7 Jr., et al.
8 DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Henry L. Walther v. Senator Floyd 78-M1241
° Haskell, et al.
10 DISTRICT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
11 Henry L. Walther v. Federal Election 78-2097Commission
12 : Henry L. Walther v. Federal Election 78-2193
Commission
3
C SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA14
Henry L. Walther v. Senator Richard 78-357-1 :
Clark, et al. i
15
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
16.
Henry L. Walther v. Dr. Bill Roy, 78-1471
17 et al.
18 WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Henry L. Walther v. Senator Walter D. C78-0466-L(A)
19 Huddleston, et al.
20 DISTRICT OF MAINE |21 Henry L. Walther v. Senator William 78-222-8SD
Hathaway, et al.
22 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
23 Henry L. Walther v. Senator Edward 78-3089-C
Brooke, et al.
4
® EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANHenry L. Walther v. Carl Levin, 78-73053
et al. |
FPI—MAR—3-27.79.6M.1781

Case MDL No. 372 Document 2 Filed 05/18/15 Page 9 of 9 .
I]
1 SCHEDULE A -- P.2
2 Pp
3
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
4
Henry L. Walther v. Donald M. Fraser 78-521
5 et al.
6 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
7 Henry L. Walther v. Bill Bradley, 78-2846
et al.
8 DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
9 Henry L. Walther v. Senator Claiborne 78-0687
Pell, et al.
10
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
11 Henry L. Walther v. Charles Revenel, 78-2018et al.
12
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
13
Henry L. Walther v. Don Barnett, 78-4118
14 et al.
15 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Henry L. Walther v. Joe Christie, EP78-CA-229
16 et al. :
17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
18 Henry L. Walther v. Andrew Miller, 78-751-A
et al.
19 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA	Seno hil ae Rov UF Whol VIRGINIA
20 Henry L. Walther v. Senator Jennings ~~ 78-215-E
Randolph, et al.
21
22
23
24
25 | FPI~MAR—~3.27.79.6M.1781 _
|