IN RE: Multidistrict Private Civil Treble Damage Antitrust Litigation Involving Admission Tickets

Case MDL No. 21 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 7
a Jo2 A /337 |	: JUDICIAL PANT ON CL
MULTICLTRIIT LTIGATICS: TT
FILED on
THE JUDICIAL PANEL AiG TR GEC PR
ON EE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION =~ PAfKitia© will BS
.TLERK a
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT PRIVATE CIVIL ) |
TREBLE DAMAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 21
INVOLVING ADMISSION TICKETS )
OPINION AND ORDER oe
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH
S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
Following notice to counsel for all parties in the then -
pending cases, a hearing was held on March 31, 1969, on the
initiative of the Panel, to determine 1f the cases should be Co
transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. s1407.%/ The responses :
filed by the parties and argument of counsel at the hearing
EAR vps | r=wus pega '1/ The "Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing" filed on
March 14, 1969 provided in part: :
You and each of you are hereby ORDERED to show
cause why the actions listed on Schedule A should
not be transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings on the initiative of the Panel
under Section 1407, Title 28, United States Code, to
a district or districts other than those in which
they are now pending.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing will be
held at 9 a.m. on March 31, 1969, in the United
States Court of Appeals Courtroom, 17th Floor, ’ :
Upited States Courthouse, Foley Square, New York,
New York, on the question of such transfer.

Case MDL No. 21 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	2 of 7
| TET
produced a contrariety of opinions. Some opposed consolidation
unequivocally, 2/ while others argued that transfer at that
time would have an adverse effect on pending settlement
negotiations.3’/ Several favored transfer of the cases to the
Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania,4/ while others favored transfer to the Northern
District of Illinois.2/
We condluded following the hearing that a stay of Panel
action would be in the interest of justice. Accordingly,
on May 2, 1969 an order was entered deferring decision until
June 30, 1969 and requesting counsel for Globe Ticket Company
® to furnish a status report showing the cases and claims which
were settled and dismissed in the interim and the status of
pretrial proceedings in the remaining cases. Status reports
were filed on June 13, 1969 and July 17, 1969.
2] Plaintiffs ABC Great States Inc., City of New York, The
New York City Transit Authority; Defendants Arcus Ticket Co.,
International Ticket Company, and Arcus Simplex-Brown, Inc.
3/ Defendants Globe Ticket Company, Globe Ticket Company of
New England, Globe Ticket Company No. 2, Southwest Globe
Ticket Company, Inc. (Florida), and William H. Patton.
4/ Plaintiff State of New York and defendant Elliott Ticket
Company.
5/ Defendants Rand McNally & Company, Ansell-Simplex Ticket
Company, American Ticket Company, Premier Southern Ticket
Company, Inc., and Arcus Ticket Company.
(NOTE: Several of the parties opposing transfer did offer
their choice for transferee forum in the event a transfer was
ordered. Separate counsel representing the same defendant in
different districts sometimes took different and conflicting
positions on the transfer issue. -

Case MDL No. 21 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	3 of 7
® TT
It appears from these reports that several claims have
been settled and dismissed but we do not believe that further
delay in determining whether there should be any transfer for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings would be in
the interest of justice. We have concluded that these cases
are clearly appropriate for transfer under Section 1407 and
that the convenience of parties and witnesses and the just
and efficient conduct of these actions will be best served
by transferring all cases not already pending there to the
Northern District of Illinois for assignment for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings to Judge Edwin A. Robson.
® The existence of one or more common questions of fact isthe statutory predicate to transfers under Section 1407.
All of these cases have a common genesis in the 1967 indictment
filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charging a multi-
state combination and conspiracy within the ticket industry
to (1) allocate customers, (2) refrain from competing, (3) fix
prices, and (4) submit collusive and rigged bids. On November 14,
1967 pleas of nolo contendere were accepted from each of the
corporate defendants and these civil actions were commenced
thereafter. Each civil complaint contains, in substantially
identical terms, a recitation of the allegations contained in
the indictment. With but few exceptions, the same ten corporate
defendants are named in each action and all ten are named
®

Case MDL No. 21 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	4 of 7
o Se
defendants in cases presently pending in each of the three
districts affected by this order. Common questions of fact
relating to the existence and scope of the alleged conspiracy
and its effect on prices of admission tickets are common to
all cases and are of critical importance to all parties.
Transfer of ali cases to the Northern District of Illinois
} cannot seriously inconvenience any defendants for they are
all named in actions already pending in that district. The
smaller corporate defendants will benefit financially for
they will not be required to retain counsel to represent their
interests in three district courts. Of course, it would be
most convenient for counsel for the plaintiffs in the actions
® pending in the Southern District of New York and the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania if coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings were conducted in either of those
districts "but the Panel must weigh the interests of all the
plaintiffs and all the defendants, and must consider multiple
litigation as a whole in the light of the purposes of the law."
In re Library Editions of Childrens’ Books, 27 F. Supp. 385,
386 (Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 1968).
At the time the hearing was held, nine of the eleven
pending cases had been filed in either the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania or the Southern District of New York and this
concentration was suggested by several of the parties as a
®

Case MDL No. 21 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	5 of 7
® 0
compelling reason for transferring the remaining cases to
one of those districts. During the intervening period several
of these cases have been settled and dismissals have either
been entered or are expected soon. The active cases are now
located in the following districts: two in the Northern
District of Illinios, three in the Southern District of
New York, and two in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Any residual numerical superiority favoring the East Coast
courts is clearly outweighed by several factors which compel
the selection of the Northern District of Illinois as the
most appropriate transferee court. The AB( Great States
® Case pending in the Northern District of Illinois is the only
one in which any meaningful discovery has occurred and it,
and the RKO-Stanley Warncr Case, are the only cases to which
a judge has been assigned for all purposes. In addition, it
is estimated that the 4BC Great States Case, which includes
nearly 100 named plaintiffs, is larger (perhaps twice as large)
in amount of damages than the aggregate of the cases pending
in Philadelphia and New York. We are also told that more of
the defendants have their principal places of business in
Chicago than in Philadelphia and New York.
In sum, we are satisfied that the convenience of parties
and witnesses and the just and efficient conduct of all of
the cases listed on Schedule A will be served by the transfer oo
)

Case MDL No. 21 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	6 of 7
° | kh
of those cases not filed therein to the Northern District of
Illinois for assignment to Judge Robson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings .8/
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the cases listed on the
attached Schedule A not already pending in the Northern
District of Illinois are hereby transferred to that district
and assigned to the Honorable Edwin A. Robson for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Attachment
6/ Judge Robson is willing to accept this added responsibility
and the Northern District of Illinois, through its Chief Judge,
has consented to the assignment of these additional cases to him.
@ 7/ This transfer will not affect any actions or claims settledand dismissed prior to the filing of this opinion and order with
the Clerk of the Northern District of Illinois.

Case MDL No. 21 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 7 of 7
® SCHEDULE A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
l. ABC Great States, Inc., et al. v. Civil Action
Globe Ticket Co., et al. No. 68 C 1690
2. RKO Stanley Warner Theaters, Inc. Vv. Civil Action
Globe Ticket Co., et al. No. 6S C 844
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
3. The City of New York, et al. v. American Civil Action
Ticket Corp. and Rand McNally & Co. No. 68 C 1
4. New York City Transit Authority v. Civil Action
American Ticket Corp. and Rand McNally No. 68 C 194
& Co.
5. Port of New York Authoirty, et al. v. Civil Action
American Ticket Corp., et al. No. 68 C 25
6. The State of New York, et al. v. Globe Civil Action
[ Ticket Co., et al. No. 68 C 2388
7. Richard Joyce Smith, et al. v. American Civil Action
Ticket Corp., et al. No. 68 C 4413
8. Madison Square Garden Corp. Vv. Globe Civil Action
Ticket Co., et al. No. 68 C 4373
- EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
9. Savar Corp., et al. v. Globe Ticket Co., Civil Action
et al. No. 43101
10. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Civil Action
Globe Ticket Co., et al. No. 44369
: 11. Ralph Cohn v. Globe Ticket Co. & Elliott Civil Action
Ticket Company No. 43244