IN RE: Royal Typewriter Co. (Royal Bond Copier) Breach of Warranty Litigation

— Case MDL No. 292 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 5
. [- Fed Co :
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL- MULT TIC EidrioN ARERR
ON FILED =
: . MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION . oo
: AUG IS 1977 |
WrPATRICIA D. 10% ARD PeIN RE ROYAL TYPEWRITER CO. (ROYAL) RK OF THE PANEL :
BOND COPIER) BREACH OF WARRANTY ) DOCKET NO. 292
LITIGATION )
: OPINION AND ORDER RT Co
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER*, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, Co :
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY*, JUDGES OF THE to
PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of three actions pending in two
federal districts: two in the Southern District of Indiana . oo
and one in the Southern District of Florida.
One of the Indiana actions (Booher) was commenced against :
Royal Typewriter Co., a division of Litton Business Systems, : So
Inc. (Royal-Litton); Royal Typewriter Co., a division of Royal oo
Business Machines, Inc. (Royal-Nevada); and Litton Industries
Credit Corporation. These three companies are allegedly
subsidiaries or divisions of the same parent corporation. Co : }
The complaint in this action alleges that the defendants T
breached express and implied warranties in the sale of
Royal Bond copiers and related parts and supplies to the
plaintiffs, who are engaged in the business of selling and
leasing photocopy equipment. Plaintiffs also allege that :
*Judges Becker, Lord and Caffrey tbok no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this matter.

_ Case MDL No. 292 Docurgent 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 5
the defendants made fraudulent representations concerning,
® inter alia, their plans for marketing the copiers in the
Indianapolis, Indiana area. The second Indiana action
(Royal) was filed by Royal-Nevada against the plaintiffs
in Booher. The complaint in Royal isbased upon the alleged
breach of promissory notes and security agreements covering
the Royal Bond copiers and related equipment sold by Royal-
Nevada to the Booher plaintiffs. Booher and Royal have been
consolidated in the Southern District of Indiana.
The Florida action was brought by Royal-Litton against
two Florida companies and two individuals engaged in the business
of selling and leasing photocopy equipment. Basically, the com=
plaint in this action alleges that the defendants violated the terms
C of various promissory notes and security agreements coveringRoyal Bond copiers, and that defendants jllegally altered
the promissory notes.
plaintiffs in Booher move the panel for an order pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407 transferring the two Indiana actions to the
Southern District of Florida for coordinated OF consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action pending there. The
remaining parties in the Indiana actions oppose transfer. We
£ind jnsufficient basis for transfer under section 1407 and,
accordingly. deny the motion.
The movants contend that the Florida action and the
Tndiana actions share factual questions concerning representa-
tions by Royal~-Litton and Royal-Nevada about Royal Bond copiers,
® and that transfer of all actions to 2a single district is there-
fore necessary. Movants argue that the Indiana actions should

. . Case MDL No. 292 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 30of5 .
. -3 -
® be transferred to the Southern District of Florida becausediscovery is at a more advanced stage there than in the
Indiana court.
- These arguments are unpersuasive. Only three actions
in two federal districts are involved here. Much of the
factual inquiry in the Florida action as compared to that
. in the Indiana actions differs because of the separate con-
tractual relationships involved in the respective actions.
And whatever common factual questions that may be present
are not, in our view, so complex or the accompanying dis-
covery so time consuming as to warrant transfer. See In
re Scotch Whiskey,	299 F. Supp. 543, 544 (J.P.M.L. 1969).
: Furthermore, we are advised that discovery in the
® Florida action is substantially complete and that this
action is nearly ready for trial. The present posture of
the Florida action thus provides	an additional reason why
transfer under Section 1407 of the actions presently before
us would neither serve the convenience of the parties nor
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
See In re Luminex International, Inc. Products Liability
Litigation, ___ F. Supp. ___, __(J.P.M.L., filed June 30,
1977): In re Braniff Airways, Inc. Employment Practices
Litigation, 411 F. Supp. 798, 800 (J.P.M.L. 1976).
The parties opposing the motion presented here contend
that the motion is frivolous and that the Panel should order
® movants to pay the attorneys' fees and travel expenses of
. the opponents of the motion in order to discourage the future
filing of groundless Section 1407 motions. . We are not

. Case MDL No. 292 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	4 of 5
® | “4 |
persuaded that the present 1407 motion is frivolous and,
consequently, deny this request.
"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407 to transfer the actions listed on the
following Schedule A be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
® |
o

- . Case MDL No. 292 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 5 of 5
SCHEDULE 2A
DOCKET NO. 292
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA Civil Action No.
Lorraine Corp., et al. v. Royal Ip-76-502-C
Typewriter Co., etc., et al.
Royal Typewriter Co., etc. v. IP-76-496~-C
Michael IL. Booher, etc., et al.
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Royal Typewriter Co., etc. v. 76-440~Civ-SMA
Xerographic Supplies Corp., et al.