IN RE: Mack Truck Parts Antitrust Litigation

oo Case MDL No. 488 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2
SRR Sr ARRSY | oo
nen |
| HAR -9 1982 ET ;
DOCKET NO. 488 PATIICIA DN Lien 2
CLERS EF Tie iL g5,8 |BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ECT
" IN RE MACK TRUCK PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER%* SERN
This litigation consists of eleven actions pending : EE
in three districts -- nine actions in the Eastern District RE
of Pennsylvania and one action each in the Northern District Lo
of Illinois and the Southern District of Ohio. Presently
before the Panel is a motion by the plaintiffs in the Ohio -
action for transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1407 of the Ohio and
Illinois actions to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions pending there. Plaintiff in the Illinois action . EE
and plaintiffs in four of the Pennsylvania actions support So ’
transfer. Mack Trucks, Inc., and its National Distributor . .
Advisory Council, the defendants in each action, oppose :transfer.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
we find that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the i. a
convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the ee
just and efficient conduct	of the litigation. We recognize oo
that these actions share some questions of fact, but we E
are persuaded that this factor is outweighed by 1) the more
advanced stage of the Pennsylvania actions in comparison ; :
to the Ohio and Illinois actions; 2) the fact that, because oothe Pennsylvania actions have been consolidated among themselves, }
there are really only three actions pending before the Panel; So :
3) the absence of any conflicting class action allegations; cL
and 4) the widely different scope of the actions pending ed REE
in the three districts -- ranging from a purported nationwide E a
class of non-governmental purchasers in Pennsylvania, to
a purported statewide class of governmental purchasers in
Illinois, to individual plaintiffs in Ohio.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407 to transfer the actions listed on the attached
Schedule A be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. .
FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman
* Judges Roy W. Harper and Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no
part in the decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 488 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	2 of 2
’ Schedule A
> MDL-488 -- In re Mack Truck Parts Antitrust Litigation
® Southern District of OhioWeiss Trucking Co., Inc., et al. v. Mack Trucks, Inc.,
et _al., C.A. No. C-2-81-1189 ooNorthern District of Illinois
State of Illinois v. Mack Trucks, Inc., et al.,
: C.A. No. 81C3106
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Globe Disposal Co., Inc., et al. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., :
et al., C.A. No. 81-0127
National Freight, Inc. v. Mack Trucks Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 81-0153
Mariana Bros., Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 81-0128
East Coast Pollution Control, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 81-0159
Union Street Transport, Inc. Vv. Mack Trucks, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 81-0254
Deetz-Bay Construction Co., et al. v. Mack Trucks, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 81-0586
John McTamney, et al. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., et al.,C.A.
No. 81-0301
Camden Lime Co., etc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 81-0400
Alan D. Alper v. Mack Trucks, Inc., et al.,
C C.A. No. 81-0624