1:84-F-00619•IN RE: Cable/Tel Corporation & Entities Securities Litigation
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.
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.