IN RE: Cable/Tel Corporation & Entities Securities Litigation

1:84-F-00619JpmlJun 1, 2015

Full text

Case MDL No. 619 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 2
7 | JUDICIAL PANEL ON
[|]
DOCKET NO. 619 MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION	FILED
C PliORt, THE JUDICIAL PAREL ON MULLIDISTICT LITIGATIHy -1 198k
Loon CABLL/TEL CORPOHATION & DNTITIFS SECURITIES LIYTGATION PATRICIA D. HO iyTRANSFER ORDER CLERK OF THE PANEL
"his 1itigzation consists of one action pending in the Northern Listrict of California
and one action pending in the Lastern District of Permsylvania. Presently before the
Panel are two motions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C
$1407: one brought by certain defendants who have noved for centralization in the Norther
District of California, and the other brought by plaintitf in the Pennsylvania action who
hes moved for centralization in the Lastern District of Pennsylvania or, in the alterna-
tive, the District of New Jersey. No responcin; party opposes transfer; the sole disjute
before the Panel coricerns selection of the appropriate transferee district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that these
actions involve comion questions of fact and that centralization under 28 U.S.C. 51407
will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions share numerous factual questions
arising from allegations in substantially similar complaints that nearly identical
defendants engaged in fraud, breach of contract and violations of federal securities ana
racketeering, laws in conjunction with defendants' sale of cable television interests as
tax shelters. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate dupli-
cative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with regard to the
overlapping class certification reguests currently pending in each action), and conserve
C the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.B Wie are persuaded that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the appropriate forum
= for this litigation. We note, inter alia, that: 1) the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
: is the district in which an action is pending that is closer	to Englewood Cliffs, lew
Jersey, where the defendant cable television companies were headquartered and where
relevant documents and witnesses are likely to be found; 2) the judge assignea the Penn-
sylvania action is already familiar with the issues in this litigation as a result of
presiding over a since settled related action brought against many of the defendants in
this docket alleging federal securities law and common law violations; 3) all ieferxiarts
and many class members are located in the Eastern United States; and 4) in light of the
facts that a related grand jury investigation occurred in the District of New Jerse, and
criminal trial involving several of the individual defendants in this docket is occurriry,
there now, the Pennsylvania forum will geographically be a more convenient forum than the
Northern District of Czlifornia for handling any matters, such as access to grand jury
documents, requiring coordination with the New Jersey court.
IT IS THERFFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the action listed on the
following Schedule A and pending in the Northern District of California he, and the same
hereby ts, transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable Louis Charles Bechtle tor coordinated or conso-
lidated pretrial proceedin.s with the action pending in that district and listed on
Schedule A.
| FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A. Caffrey
Chairman
. Case MDL No. 619 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 2
? * 0, “on :
SCHEDULE A ®
dib=tdY == In re Cable/Tel Corporation & Fntities Securities Litigation
rastern District of Pennsylvania	Lon ee dlh OF Pennsylvania
Harvey Rosenbluth v. Ro.cer H. Maggio, et al., C.A. No. 34-2671	= ny or GoM Ve ROLCP HL. narilo, et al.
Northern District of California	Spl Laein J.stract of Lallfornia
Gordon Wilson, et al. v. Cable/Tel Corp., et al., C.A. No. C-84-1294~-AJ7	—_— ns Frese Ve Yah eel Lorp., et al.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.