IN RE: Shopping Carts Antitrust Litigation

ES : rma i
: Case MDL No. 451 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 5 :
JUTHDIAL PANEL oy
MULTIESTARICT LGTY 0 CL
DOCKET NO. 451 a EE
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION APR -T7 381 Co
ATZICIAD nop ane i
IN RE SHOPPING CARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION icra THR :
TRANSFER ORDER ‘ ' i
This litigati tl ist £ i i Yi	gation presently consists of 34 actions pending i
in ten districts as follows: bee
Southern District of New York 15 TER
Northern District of Illinois 6 Co Cn
Central District of California 3 IEE
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2 -
Southern District of Texas 2 Co
District of Massachusetts 2
Eastern District of Wisconsin 1
Western District of Pennsylvania 1
Northern District of Mississippi 1
Northern District of California : 1 .
The matter is before the Panel on the motion of plaintiffs Se a oe
in 27 actions listed on the attached Schedule A to centralize, Lo
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, all actions in this litigation a }
in either the Southern District of New York or the Northern
District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial Le
proceedings, and also on the motion of plaintiffs in one
action to centralize all actions in this litigation in the :Eastern District of Wisconsin.= In addition, all defendants Fo
have moved to transfer the Mississippi action (Dunlap) to :
the Northern District of Illinois under Section 1407.= : -
All parties except plaintiffs in two actions favor .
or do not oppose transfer of the actions to a single district Co nL
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs Se
in the Dunlap action pending in the Northern District of Ln
1/ Plaintiffs’ motions also included the action captioned i
Busy Boy Markets, Inc., et al. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., :
et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. C80-4140-SAW (Busy Boy).
On February 9, 1981, however, Busy Boy was remanded to Cali-
fornia state court. Accordingly, the motion pursuant to :
28 U.S.C. §1407 for transfer of Busy Boy for coordinated .
or consolidated pretrial proceedings is denied as moot. 0
2/ The Panel also has been advised of a related action i 2
captioned Pickwell Fine Foods Supermarket, Inc. v. Roblin
Industries, Inc., et al., S.D. New York, C.A. No. 80 Civ.
5270. This action will be treated as a potential tag-along
action. See Rule 9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561,
567-69 (1978). :

~. ’ Case MDL No. 451 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	2 of 5
Mississippi and plaintiff in the Giant Eagle action pending
in the Western District of Pennsylvania maintain that their
C respective actions should be excluded from any transferorder that the Panel might issue in this litigation.
Alternatively, plaintiffs in the Mississippi action favgycentralization in the Northern District of Mississippi.=
The principal dispute concerns the selection of the transferee
district. Most of the plaintiffs favor centralization in
either the Southern District of New York or the Northern.
District of Illinois. All defendants favor centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff in one
action favors centralization in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin; plaintiff in one action favors centralization
in either the Northern District of California or the Central
District of California; and plaintiffs in one action favor
centralization in the Northern District of Mississippi.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
: the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve
common questions of fact and that centralization of the
actions under Section 1407 in the Southern District of New
York will best serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation.
Although we are of the view that either the Southern
~ District of New York or the Northern District of Illinois
® could be described as an appropriate transferee forum for
E this litigation, we conclude that the Southern District
of New York is preferable. The fact that related grand
jury proceedings occurred in the Southern District of New
York tips the scales in favor of that forum under the cir-
cumstances in this litigation.
The documents and transcripts of testimony on which
the grand jury relied in returning its indictment are likely
to be sought by the litigants in the actions presently before
us, and those materials are located in the Southern District
of New York. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court,
in Douglas Oil Company	v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. :
211 (1979), has required, with respect to access to grand
jury materials in related antitrust actions, coordination
between the court presiding over the grand jury proceedings
and the court presiding over the related antitrust actions.
This coordination can more easily be accomplished by selecting
as transferee district the same district in which the grand
jury sat. See In re California Armored Car Antitrust Liti-
: gation, 476 F. Supp 452, 454 (J.P.M.L. 1979). i
3/ Plaintiffs in Dunlap have filed a motion to remand Dunlap
® to Mississippi state court. We have decided to defer further	_ consideration of the Section 1407 motion to transfer Dunlap
until the motion to remand Dunlap to Mississippi state court
has been resolved.

c, . Case MDL No. 451 Docuameent2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	3 of 5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
® §1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and	pending in districts other than the Southern District of
New York be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the
Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Charles IL. Brieant for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule
A.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that further consideration of transfer
under 28 U.S.C. §1407 of the action captioned Sam Dunlap,
et al. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al., N.D. Mississippi,
C.A. No. EC80-340-WK-P,	be, and the same hereby is, DEFERRED,
until the motion to remand this action to Mississippi state
court is resolved.
FOR THE PANEL:
CtrAndrew A. Caffrey
Chairman

) . Case MDL No. 451 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 5
CC SCHEDULE A
Docket No. 451 —- In re Shopping Carts Antitrust Litigation
® Central District of California
Joserh B. Goldberg, etc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. CV80-4085-DWW
Raley's v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al., :
C.A. No. CV80-4083-AWT :
Arden-Mayfair Inc., et al. v. Technibilt Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. CV80-4993~-AWT
Northern District of California
Safeway Stores v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. C80-4077-WAS 0 :
Northern District of Illinois
The Food Seller, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80-4984 TTT
Mechanical Rubber & Supply	Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80-4986 TT —
Plesing Super Mart, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80-5002 TT
Penny's Supermarkets, Inc. v. Unarco Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80-5054
Les On Retail Systems, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80-5072 TT
: Buy Low, Inc., et al. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80-4958 oT
District of Massachusetts
The Stop & Shop Co., Inc.,	et al. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
( C.A. No. 80-2203 TTT TTTGreat Scott Food Markets v. Unarco Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80-2415-G oT
Southern District of New York
Resjefal Corp. v. Unarco Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5076
Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5002 TT
Chatham Supermarkets, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5103
Alexanders Markets, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5108
Eastside Foods, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5140
- Pik N Pak v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al., :
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5181
Win-Holt Equipment Corp. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5258
Murray's	of Baderwood, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5259 rT }
Shopwell, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5253 TT
Lomark Discount Drugs, Inc. v. Unarce Industries, Inc., et al.,
~C.A. No. 80 Civ 5269
Martin Perlov, et al. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
® C.A. No. 80 Civ 5260 TT

Ca. Case MDL No. 451 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 5 of 5	- ~
Southern District of New York (continued)
- Pick Quick Foods, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc. et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5334
@ PSK Food Corp., et al. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al., :	C.A. No. 80 Civ5445
Zayre Corporation v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 5737
CES Operating Co. t/a Great Scott Markets v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80 Civ 6088
Eastern District of Pennsylvania :
Giant Markets, Inc. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80-3491
Davisville Center, Inc., et al. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 80-3526 :
Western District of Pennsylvania
Giant Eagle Markets v. Roblin Industries, Inc.,
C.A. No. 80-1472 -
Southern District of Texas
Schepps Grocery Company	v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. H-80-2091 IE
Char-Pac, Inc. d/b/a Foodland v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. H-80-2102 TT
Eastern District of Wisconsin
Godfrey Co. v. Roblin Industries, Inc., et al.,
. C.A. No. 80-979 TTT