IN RE: AMF Computer Cash Register Contract Litigation

Case MDL No. 130 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 4
® BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL	ON Hm
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION vice (573
IN RE AMF COMPUTERIZED CASH ) RI:
REGISTER CONTRACT LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 136
OPINION AND ORDER
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
In 1968 AMF installed a prototype computerized cash
register at McDonald's of Elk Grove, Inc. (hereinafter Elk Grove),
a wholly owned subsidiary of McDonald's Corporation of Elk Grove,
Illinois. The prototype was installed for the principal purpose
® of demonstrating the product to Elk Grove and other subsidiaries
and franchisees of McDonald's and adapting it to accommodate
a McDonald's restaurant operation. McDonald's Corporation and
certain of its subsidiaries and franchisees placed orders for
similar cash registers with AMF, but later cancelled the orders
because of problems Elk Grove experienced with the prototype.
Commencing in 1972 AMF filed a series of actions against
McDonald's and its subsidiaries and franchisees alleging the
wrongful cancellation of their agreements to purchase the compu-
terized cash registers. Defendants assert in defense that the
orders were cancelled because the prototype installed at Elk Grove
could not be made to operate properly after extended efforts by
® AMF. In addition to the contract actions brought by AMF, Elk Grove= has brought an action against AMF in the Northern District of

Case MDL No. 130 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 4
- 2 -
os
® Illinois to recover the purchase price of the prototype plus
compensatory damages, alleging that the prototype installed at its
place of business experienced numerous mechanical, electrical
and technological failures, did not perform as warranted and
caused serious disruption of its business.
Elk Grove moves the Panel for an order transferring
all actions to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. At the time of the Panel
hearing to consider transfer of these actions to a single district
under Section 1407, only AMF opposed Elk Grove's motion. Subse-
quent to the hearing, however, the court for the Southern District
of New York ordered the AMF action against McDonald's, which was
pending in that district, transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1404 (a)
® to the Northern District of Illinois for all purposes. As a result
of this order, AMF has formally notified the Panel and all parties
concerned that it has withdrawn its opposition to the Elk Grove motion.
Upon the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
we find that these actions involve substantial common questions
of fact and that transfer of all actions to a single district
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation. Since the vast majority
of the common discovery will concern the operation of the prototype
unit installed at Elk Grove's place of business in Illinois and
since all parties now favor transfer of these actions to the
( Northern District of Illinois under Section 1407, we find that
that district is the most appropriate transferee forum for this
litigation.

Case MDL No. 130 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 4
-— 3 -—
¢ IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions on the attached
Schedule A pending in districts other than the Northern District
of Illinois be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Richard W. McLaren for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
with the actions pending in that district.
@
®

Case MDL No. 130 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 4
é SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 130
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Mcbonald's Of Elk Grove, Inc. Vv. Civil Action
AMF, Inc. No. 72 C 1743
AMF Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. Civil Action
No. 73 C 1376
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMF Inc. v. Lawrence R. Scheel, Jr., Civil Action
et al. No. 73 - 10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
AMF Inc. v. The Triskett Co. Civil Action
No. C72-1190
AMF Inc. v. Talmadge Park, Inc. Civil Action
No. C72-395
AMF Inc. v. Orvin's Inc. Civil Action
C No. C72-1189
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
AMF Inc. v. Warren & Hadley, Inc. Civil Action
No. 39426
AMF Inc. v. Dewbo, Inc. Civil Action
No. 39427