IN RE: Termination of Speed Queen Distributorships Litigation

Case MDL No. 468 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 3
: SESILIAL PANS: oy, ce
MULTI FRICT Frist rion » Coa
FILED CF Co
DOCKET NO. 468 JUL 15 193] 7/4578 | EELS
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LRFEGATION	zs Jy
CLERK GF THE PANEL :
IN RE TERMINATION OF SPEED QUEEN DISTRIBUTORSHIPS LITIGATION }
TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation consists of four actions, one each pending in .
the Southern District of Indiana, the District of Kansas, the : :
Western District of Texas and the Southern District of Ohio. Ce
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. : E
§1407, brought by defendants Speed Queen Company, Inc. (Speed . Co
Queen), Raytheon Company, Inc. (Raytheon) and Amana Refrigeration, :
Inc., to centralize actions in this litigation in the Southern
District of fpdiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrialproceedings.= All plaintiffs oppose transfer. In the event that
the Panel orders centralization in this docket, however, plaintiffs i “
in three of the four actions favor selection of the District of EE
Kansas as the transferee forum. : .
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the
Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact and .
that centralization of the actions under Section 1407 in the
District of Kansas will best serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation. oT
In each action in this litigation, the plaintiff alleges that .
it was wrongfully terminated as a Speed Queen distributor. Each :
complaint alleges that the corporate acquisition of Speed Queen by
Raytheon was to some degree a causative factor in the termination :
of that plaintiff as a Speed Queen distributor. Consequently, all
four actions necessarily raise common questions of fact concerning : i
the course of conduct pursued by defendants in terminating numerous
distributorships in the wake of Speed Queen's acquisition by no co _
Raytheon. Transfer under Section 1407 is therefore necessary in Co :
order to avoid duplication of discovery.
1/ One additional action, United Distributors, Inc. v. Raytheon
Co., Inc., et al., E.D. Louisiana, C.A. No.81-260-K(2),	was Co oo
included	in the motion for transfer in this litigation. This . SA
action was remanded to Louisiana state court by order of the nN
Honorable George Arceneaux, Jr., entered on June 16, 198%. The }
question of transfer of this action pursuant to Section 1407 is
therefore moot. Co -
Movants originally sought to centralize the actions in this
litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Because of the
remand of the Louisiana action to Louisiana state court, movants
now favor selection of the Southern District of Indiana as the ‘ .
transferee forum.

Ce. % Case MDL No. 468 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	2 of 3
—-2-
Opponents of transfer argue that, notwithstanding the
allegations in the complaints relating to defendants' broad course
é of conduct, each complaint alleges a specific decision to terminatethe distributorship of the plaintiff in that action. Each complaint
thus focuses on a unique series of dealings and communications
between the plaintiff in that action and the officers and agents
of defendants, opponents contend. We recognize that, while the
existence of common questions of fact in these actions justifies
centralization under Section 1407, these actions likewise present
numerous individual issues of fact, the resolution of which will
not necessarily be expedited by participation of the parties in
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. We also recognize
~ that the Panel has customarily left the manner and extent of
coordination or consolidation of pretrial proceedings to the
discretion of the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Equity Funding
Corporation of America Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp. 1378,
1384-85 (J.P.M.L. 1974). 1In the special circumstances presented
: here, we simply suggest that the transferee judge focus the parties’
discovery and other pretrial efforts primarily upon the areas of ’
common factual inquiry so that, once these common pretrial pro-
ceedings are completed, these actions may promptly be remanded,
pursuant to Rule 11, R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 280-82 (1981),
to their respective transferor courts for pretrial processing of
any remaining areas of individual factual inquiry.
Although no forum could be described as the nexus of this
litigation, on balance we are persuaded that the District of Kansas
® is the appropriate transferee forum. The District of Kansas iscentrally located for the parties presently involved in this
litigation and it will be an ideglly central forum if this litigationbecomes truly national in scope.Z
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in districts
other than the District of Kansas be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the District of Kansas and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Patrick F. Kelly for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action already pending
there and listed on Schedule A.*
FOR THE PANEL:
} = mdrew A. Caffrey
Chairman
2/	Movants	have represented to the Panel that additional
related actions are likely to be commenced in federal courts
throughout the United States.
® * Judge Roy W. Harper dissents from this decision of thePanel.

Ny nr Case MDL No. 468 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 3
MDL-468 -- In re Termination of Speed Queen Distributorships Litigation
é SCHEDULE A
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Capital Consolidated, Inc. v. Speed Civil Action No. |
Queen Company 1p801092C
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Hennigh's, Inc. v. Speed Queen Civil Action No.
Company, et al. 80-1982
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS |
Central Distributing Company v. Civil Action No.
Speed Queen Company, et al. SA80CA601
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
The Bimel-Walroth Company v. Civil Action No.
Speed Queen Company, et al. C-1-81-385