IN RE: Airtemp Acquisition Securities Litigation

Case MDL No.-478 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	1 of 2
| DOCKET NO. 478 San. Se
Spa oo
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Co
: iT 1a 2 Co :
IN RE AIRTEMP ACQUISITION SECURITIES LITIGATION (T1431 PE
CE RE A9a~ ORDER DENYING TRANSFER or ——
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407, brought by the defendants in the two actions
listed on the attached Schedule A for transfer of the action
pending in the District of New Jersey to the Southern District Ce
of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings CL
with the action pending there.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
we find that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Given the
minimal number of actions before us, movants have failed
to persuade us that any common questions of fact involved So
in these actions are sufficiently complex, and that the f .
accompanying discovery will be so time-consuming, as to oC Co
justify Section 1407 transfer. See In re Scotch Whiskey oo CL
Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp. 543, 544 (J.P.M.L. 1969). : CL
Furthermore, we note that the New York action was commenced
over three years ago, that a December 31, 1981 discovery
deadline has been established in that action, and that,
accordingly, the action is nearly ready for trial. Inclusion
of the New York action in centralized pretrial proceedings
could delay the termination of that action without providing : Co
any overriding benefit to the litigation as a whole. See
In re Celotex Corporation "Technifoam" Products Liability
litigation, 68 F.R.D. 502, 505 (J.P.M.L. 1975). Finally,
we point out that suitable alternatives to transfer exist
in order to minimize the possibility of duplicative discovery ER
and/or conflicting pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli
Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation,
446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978). See also Manual
for Complex Litigation, Parts I and II, §§3.11 (rev. ed.
1977).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 be, and the same hereby is,
DENIED.
oo FOR THE PANEL:
( Ing @.G 7Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman

Case MDL No. 478 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2
i SCHEDULE A
MDL-478 —— In re Airtemp Acquisition Securities Litigation	re 3 = a
oo District of New Jersey : :
oo Chrysler Corp. -v. Fedders Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. 81-661 ” To : CL
E Southern District of New York Co :» . Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., :
1