IN RE: Nissan Motor Corporation Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 120 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 5
Jingo er ————————— - —— — ==. oo 5
TRIER DAT ry - . Co . .
: wos TT TT EI :
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL SE
or J -5 1973 CeMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION foe CU .
BATT ; So
IN RE NISSAN MOTOR CORPORATION ) fe SY BEANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 120 #8 +
| Y5773.
OPINICN AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH*, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, : : IT
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH EE
S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL : so
PER CURIAM oo |
The Nissan Motor Corporation, distributor of Datsun
automobiles and parts in the United States, moves for the ERE
transfer of two antitrust treble damage actions against it Co
to the Central District of California. The plaintiffs,
whose actions were filed in the Southern District of New
York and the Southern District of Florida, expressed no
strong opposition to transfer but suggested that one of
those districts be selected as the transferee forum.
After reading the briefs submitted by the parties and
hearing oral argument, we order the action pending in the
Southern District of New York transferred to the Southern oo
District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated pre-
trial proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, with the
action pending there.
* Judge Alfred P. Murrah was unable to attend the hearing
but has, with the consent of all parties, participated in :
this decision.

Case MDL No. 120 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 5
e -
The United States filed an action for injunctive
relief under the antitrust laws against Nissan in the
Northern District of California in June 1972. That action
alleged a conspiracy between Nissan and its dealers
throughout the United States to fix prices and to restrict
territories and customer selection in the sale of Datsun
automobiles. Shortly thereafter the first treble damage
class action was filed by plaintiff P.D.Q., Inc. in the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all Datsun
purchasers, except dealers, in the United States. Several
days later the second treble damage class action was filed
by plaintiff Scharf in the Southern District of New York |
® on behalf of all purchasers and consumers of Datsun
vehicles. Both actions contain allegations of a nationwide
conspiracy by the defendants which are substantially
identical to the allegations in the United States' action.
Plaintiff P.D.Q. suggests that these two actions
come within the rationale of our decision in In re Scotch
Whiskey Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp. 543 (J.P.M.L. 1969),
denying transfer of two treble damage actions because of
the minimal number of cases and relative simplicity of the
common factual questions. We believe that the greater
complexity of factual issues presented here and the pre-
sence of competing requests for class designation distinguish
this litigation from the Scotch Whiskey cases and make
® transfer necessary for the convenience of the parties and -

Case MDL No. 120 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 5
o | - 3 -
witnesses and the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In re Refrigerant Gas Antitrust Litigation,
334 F. Supp. 996 (J.P.M.L, 1971); In re CBS Licensing
+ Antitrust Litigation, 328 F. Supp. 511 (J.P.M.L. 1971).
We reject Nissan's argument for selection of the
Central District of California as the transferee district.
It appears that little, if any, discovery has been had in
the action brought by the United States in the Northern
District of California and counsel for Nissan indicated
at the hearing that a consent decree was likely in that
action in the near future. And although Los Angeles is
® Nissan's corporate headquarters and some of its documents| are located there, no document depository has been estab-
lished there and relevant documents are also located in
the various regional headquarters of Nissan throughout
the United States. It is more logical to send the New
York case to the Southern District of Florida. Pretrial
| proceedings are further advanced there and the New York
case can be integrated into those proceedings, resulting
in the expeditious development of both cases without
duplication of effort.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on
the attached Schedule A, pending in the Southern District
of New York, be, and the same hereby is, transferred to
® the Southern District of Florida and with the consent of

Case MDL No. 120 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 5
J CL
| that court assigned to the Honorable C. Clyde Atkins for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the action pending there and listed
“on Schedule A.
®
®

Case MDL No. 120 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5
0 SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 120
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
P.D.Q., Inc. of Miami wv. Civil Action No.
Nissan Motor Corp. 72-1159-Civ-CA
~ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Arthur Scharf, etc. v. Civil Action No.
Nissan Motor Corp. } 72 Civ. 3096