IN RE: Warehouse Construction Contract Litigation

EE Case MDL No. 180, Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 3 : oo
PL Cosmind Eta, Te : :
® 784 387 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT Cremain so if the Texas gourt denies the the actions listed on the attached Sched- .
Section 0d (RTE If that motion - ule A be, and {Mose Nlroby is, denied. ]
. is denied, any possiility of duplicative SHEL oe A oo
discovery can easilylbe avoided through | - = : }
: cooperative efforts amoung the common. Western District of Oklakol E . .
partics in the Oklafloma and Texas a- George v. Strick Corporation et Civil Acticn =
tions or by these ‘3 riles requesting a at _ Lo. CIV-T72-409
stay of the Oklanola actions and pro- Synco, et ab. v. Strick Corporfe Civii Action . } ‘
ceeding with the Tdkas actions. If the tom eta: gp No. CiV—72-408 :
. Texas court grants fhe Section 1404(2) Northern District of Texas : 4
motion, Strick will bg the only defendant george v. Strick Corporation, et® Givi ‘Action
: in the Texas actiofs and Freightliner al. 'f No. CA-3-653-D = :
and White Motor Will continue to be - Synco, etal. v. Strick . erie? ction . :
© the only defendants fn the Oklahoma ac- ‘ova ~ © Fo. CA3-657-D :
tions. Even in thisfcircumstance, how- °° - ’ : " VC :
ever, plaintiffs can avoid any duplication -
of discovery concerning the common is- .	A EC . } O § KiY AUMIIR SYSIIM .
sues by coordinating their efforts in the . } 7 / . .
two jurisdictions; fer example, plain- ]
tiffs could file notices for a particular ) <0 } / a
deposition in both he Oklahoma and } SETexas district courts§ thereby making : - A : j
: the deposition applicable in ouch Turis. fa re WARIHOUST CON,STRUCT.SON E
| diction. Plaintiffs cduld also seek a Cox TRACT LITIGATION.
LF 3 stipulation that all discovery may be No. 180.a ‘ used in all actions. ‘Thus, we believe Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
@® that suitable alternatives to a Section, : Jan. 9, 1575. -	1407 transfer are avaifable to the par- oo oo
JET ties in this litigation.
= : J on CR. . © The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
; : [3] Furthermore, in ight of the his- Litigation held that multidistrict action }
tory of this litigation fre suspece taat which involved eight subcontraciors who - 0
plaintiffs dominant regson or SCeXKINg wero allegedly fraudulently induced by
j transfer of the Texas acjions under Sec- gofondant financiers of warehouse fo .
! tion 1407	is to accorapifsh, at least for continue construction on warehouse afi- =
| - pretrial purposes, what Is not otherwise op construction was halted by owners. Bh
’ possible in the Oklahomg federal cours ,.4 \hich was commenced in ‘Northern | SE
| because of lack of in pegonam jurisdic- pigirict of Georgia would be transferredtion over defendant Sty CK. Although for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
: me propriety of it pergmamJavisdic: proceedings with action by six of plain- -
CL nota criterion	in consifring transfer big atsenior mah ans| of actions to that districf under Section : A hee ove eomve. -
: . : o ' oy Te oC nience of parties and witnesses and pre-
: LT, I appears that In gnis particular vent duplication of discovery and incon-} itigation plaintiffs’ ulte Hor motive for sistent pretrial rulings. oo -
: seeking transfer amountsgto an attempt- a. RK .
ed misuse of the statue. See In re Order accordingly.
; “icast of the Rockies” Cork rete Pipe An- >
titrust Cases, 302 F.Supp 244, 255-256 goupts c277.2 : .
(Jud.Pan.Multi.Lit.1969) | (Weigel, J, Multidisirict action which involved
concurring). eight subcontractors who were allegedly .
- © iis therefore ordered that the motion fraudulently induced by defendant fin- :
® pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to transfer anciers of warchouse to continue con-
OE A SEA ASP 2 Ort APPA rte eee ee

- . . | ) i . Lc : C
EE Case MDL No. 180 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 3 - :
1 : -	i ; . : : . .
wn IN RE WAREHOUSE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT LITIGATION f53 .! Cite as 387 F.Supp. 724 (1975) : :
: struction on warehouse after construe- to 28 U.S.C. § 14067, but requested a stay
tion was halted by owners and which of its motion before the Panel pending
- was commenced in Northern District of = the decision of the Georgia court con- i
Georgia would be transferred for coordi- cerning the Section 1404(a) "motion. .
; nated or consolidated pretrial proceed- Defendant urged that the Seetion 1407
© Ings with action by six of same plain- motion be reinstated if the entire action Ts ;
tiffs against same defendants, in lizht were not -iransferred by the Georgia -
oi fact that transfer would serve conven- court. “The Panel granted the stay and :
ience of parties and witnesses, promote the Georgia court has since issued an or- Co
just and efficient conduct of litigation der transferring the claims of soven of
and prevent duplication of discovery and the eight plaintiffs to the Middle Dis- :
inconsistent pretrial rulings. 28 U.S.C. trict of Tennessee under Section
A. § 1407. : oC 1404(a). The court noted that none of .
_ - the plaintiffs opposed transfer and that :
i the eighth plaintiif’s claim was not
Before ALFRED P. MURRAY, transferred because it could not have
, Chairman, and JOIN MINOR WIS- been brought in Tennessee. The Panel oe
DOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN subsequently lifted its stay and the :
A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, question of whether the Georgia action N
: 50 7 a VLE containing the remaining plaintifi’s a. |	. JOSE . , 44k, an Ji : g - R
© A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel. - claim against defendant Dobson and Co
Johnson should be transferred under
OPINION AND ORDER Section 1407 to the Middle District of
Tennessee is now before the Panell :
SPE PER CURIAM Plaintiff has not indicated any oppdsi-
. . yeas SL a. - tion to the motion. We find that these :
= Eight plaintiffs originally filed an ac- Co om LT ay ee
.. . «actions involve common questions of fact
tion in a Georgia state court against , N . . ve : -
Do: a Johns - d the Third and that transfer of the Georgia action .	obson and Johnson, Inc. and the Thir et ee .. N . ~ to the Middle District of Tennessee for .
EEE National Bank of Nashville, Tennessee, - YsFy J . coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro- . .; ihe action was later removed to the . eer. o . :; . ey - A . ceedings with the aciion pending there
| Northern District of Georgia where de- he . J .| oor rove BE . will serve the convenience of the parties
! fendant Third National Bank was dis- a . NSbe ca PENI and witnesses and promote the just and
; . missed on grounds of improper venue efficient conduct of the litieation .	] “ 1CIL .
: pursuant to the bank venue statute, i2 REA : © . i
U.S.C. § 94. In order to overcome the Plaintiffs are all subcontractors who :
. bank venue problem, six of the cight Were employed to construct a large :
© plaintiffs in the Georgia action proceed- warehouse in Duluth, Georgia. : AfterBR ‘ed to file a virtually identical action the structure was partially completed, : .1 . . er 1 }
agdinst the same two defendants in the = the owners halted construction. Both.Middle District of Tennessee. . defendants were involved in the financ- : :
- . ing of this project and plaintiffs allege
Defendant Dobson and Johnson filed a 18 iS brojecy and plainulils atleg. FO . . . that these defendants fraudulently in-
motion in the Georgia action requesting duced ther to resume work.” }	transfer of that action to the Middle © : :
: District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U. Defendant Dobson and Johnson argues
S.C. § 1404(a) or, in the alternative, that this litigation involves complex fac-
transfer of the claims of seven of the tual issues because it is related to a.
cight plaintiffs. Shortly thereafter, de- Chapter X reorganization proceeding :
fendant moved the Panel for an order filed by the owners of the warehouse
transferring the Georgia action to the that resulted in the plaintiff subcontrac-
© Middle District of Tennessee pursuant tors receiving limited partnership inter-
I. Que parties waived their right to oral argu- transfer of this uction under 28 U.S.C. § 1407
CY ment und, sat their request, the question of was submitted on the briefs,. Co

| x Case MDL No. 180 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 0f3 oo So
“- ’ . -
735 : 387 FEDERAL. SUPPLEMENT A :
~~ ' . . . :
ests in the warehouse. Defendant main- transfer of this action to Tennessee un-
© tains that, in spite of the fact thai there der Seetion 1407 is an additional factor
are only two actions in this litigation, favoring its transfer. ‘ | .
antral Teac ae £31 Cu PS Ca - ven Pp
the factual issues are sufficiently com It is therefore ordered that, pursuant } .od ar rant 3 O07 tre . ~ Ph i a fee	plex to warrant a Section 1407 transfer. to 23 U.S.C. § 1407, the action listed on1343 Tnfond - 1 an fa fo
In addition, defendant contends that the the attached Schedule A pending in theTie i. ven] M 3 3 ie . . . s- :
aiscovery concerning ail claims in this Northern District of Georgia be, and tne
litigation will involve the same witnesses ‘game hereby is, transferred to the did- -	. Iintarmratl 3 “. . - . . : ” . « .
and information and therefore transfer - gis District of Tennessee and, with tne4] . rar i seat 3 - a 4 : 1
will prevent duplication of discovery and consent of that court, assigned to the.HI Tetant nail. 1; ATandand - s 2 ~. A :
inconsistent pretrial rulings. Defendant Honorable L. Clure Morton for coordi
also points out that the Tennessee court pa:ed or consolidated pretrial proceed-1. Pp . $1701 data. . nota . . - . ae La «
has set an carly trial date and suggests ings with the action pending there and
that the litigation will proceed expedi- }igted on Schedule A. oo E
tiously there. ' : : Co IEEE
We zre persuaded by movant's argu- ) SCHEDULE A | oo	es se NR . — }
ments and find that the criteria are in Northern District of Georgia
decd satisfied for transfer of the Geor- —_— a
gia action under Section 1407 to the Northside Iron and Metal Co, Civil Action	Ser NS Jp. J . Inc., et al. v. Dobson and Joha- No. 16181
Middle District of Tennessee for coordi- son, Inc. i
- ida nretyi x ad. , .
nated or consolidated pretrial proceed Middle District of Tennesses
ings with the action pending there. —_— .
" Movreov. laintifs i Poa. Northside Iron and Metal Co. Civil Action R -
fLoveover, pial bfx S apparent acaules Inc. v. Dobson and Johnson, Inc, . No. 74—-47-MNA—~CA )cence sub silendio to the motion for of a :
| : . : . [] ot .
TY AA AVE EAP AHA HARP. re Ate fe ol Stem mtr a, mt imi mre mr i Ch imi =