IN RE: Grand Funk Railroad Trademark Litigation

Case MDL No. 145 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL IERIE RESET
MULTIDISTRIGD LITIGATION EERE
IN RE GRAND FUNK RAILROAD ) Fons a
TRADEMARK LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 145
| OPINION AND ORDER Sr
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 |
This litigation arises out of an intra-corporate
dispute between three musicians and their manager, Terry Knight.
The musicians filed an action in the Southern District of New York
against Knight seeking rescission of their various business agree-
ments and charging Knight with fraud, securities laws violations
and mismanagement of the parties' corporation, Grand Funk Railroad
Bnterprises, Ltd. While that action was pending, the musicians
embarked independently on a nationwide concert tour performing
as Grand Funk Railroad, a trademark secured by the corporation.
Knight concurrently brought twenty-nine trademark infringement
actions around the country against the performers and local con-
cert organizers seeking either to enjoin or recover profits from
the performances.
The Panel ordered all parties to show cause why these
actions should not be transferred to one district for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407.
The performers, Knight, and a few local defendants support trans-
fer of all the actions to the Southern District of New York.

Case MDL No. 145 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 7
- 2 =
On the other hand, the majority of the local municipal auditorium
defendants are strongly opposed to transfer. On the basis of
the pleadings filed and the hearing held, we find that transfer
of these actions at this time would neither serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses nor promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation.
The parties favoring transfer argue that the actions
share common questions of fact concerning the validity and owner-
ship of the trademark. They also assert that transfer to a single
. district will eliminate the possibility of inconsistent pretrial
decisions on motions to stay proceedings which are pending in
several of the infringement actions.
The parties opposing transfer argue that the infringe-
ment actions do not share any significant common questions of fact
with each other because discovery in those actions will focus on
the promotional activities which varied widely with each concert.
The concert organizers also assert that they are merely third-
parties to the underlying dispute between Knight and the performers.
And they stress that since the original action in New York is
at an advanced stage of discovery, transfer of the infringement
actions may delay a decision on the underlying issue of trademark
ownership.
These actions. appear to ‘contain limited common questions
concerning the ownership of the Grand Funk Railroad trademark..
And on its surface this litigation appears to resemble the actions
in the Butterfield Patent Infringement Litigation, which we

Case MDL No. 145 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 7
- 3 -
transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. In re Butterfield Patent Infringement
Litigation, 328 F.Supp. 513 (J.P.M.L. 1270). But there are
significant distinguishable differences. In theButterfield
litigation, for example, plaintiff alleged that his patent on
a corneal contact lens was being directly infringed by established
rival lens producers. The present litigation, however, was spawned
by an intra-corporate struggle for control; and Knight implicated
the concert organizers, whose interests in the trademark were
purely transitory, in an unsuccessful effort to block each concert
and force the performers to recognize him:.as a minority share-
holder. In addition, there was little, if any, discovery on the
common issues in the Butterfield actions at the time of transfer;
but in the present infringement actions discovery on the ownership
issue is almost complete and that question is nearly ripe for
decision in the original action filed in the Southern District
of New York. As a result of the advanced stage of pretrial
proceedings in the original action, we find that transfer of all
the subsequently filed infringement actions to the Southern
District of New York at this time would needlessly entangle third
parties in the fundamental dispute and only tend to delay the
expeditious handling of that action.
Furthermore, the Panel must weigh any benefit that
transfer would provide in the way of eliminating the possibility
of inconsistent pretrial decisions against the efficient admin-
istration of the litigation as a whole. It is clear that

Case MDL No. 145 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 7
- 4 -
the discovery involving defendants' alleged infringement will focus
on localized factual issues concerning the nature, scope, extent
and effect of the alleged promotional activities. And inasmuch as
the issue of trademark ownership is near the trial stage, transfer
of these actions at this time will neither serve the convenience
of the majority of the parties and witnesses nor promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation. Our denial of transfer,
however, is without prejudice to any party's right to renew their
efforts toward coordinated or consolidatéd pretrial proceedings
under Section 1407 if they feel future circumstances so require.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that transfer of these actions
to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407 be, and the same hereby is,
DENIED, without prejudice to the right of any party to move for
transfer at a later time.

Case MDL No. 145 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 5 of 7
SCHEDULE	A " DOCKET	NO, 145
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
Terry Knight, etc. v. The City of Mobil, Civil Action
Alabama, et al. No. 7522-73-H
EASTERN DISTRICT	OF ARKANSAS
Terry Knight, etc. v. Arkansas Livestock Civil Action
Show Assn., et al. No. LR73C-49
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Terry Knignt, etc. v. The Forum of Civil Action
Inglewood, Inc., et al. No. 72-2817-MML
NORTHERN	DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -
Terry Knight, etc. v. Oakland-Alameda Civil Action
County Coliseum, Inc., et al. No. 72-2179-LHB
" DISTRICT	OF COLORADO
Terry Knight, etc. v. City and County Civil Action
of Denver, Colorado d/b/a Denver No. C=-4719
Coliseum, et al.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA -
Terry Knight, etc. v. City of Savannah, Civil Action
Georgia, et al. No. 3072.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT	OF ‘INDIANA
Terry Knight, etc. v. City of Evansville, Civil Action
et al. No. 73-C-8
" ‘SOUTHERN DISTRICT	OF TOWA -
Terry Knight, etc. v. Veterans Memorial Civil Action
Auditorium Commission,	et al. No. 73~24=-1
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Terry Knight, etc. v. Wichita State Civil Action
University Intercollegiate Athletic No. W-5061
Association, Inc., et al. -

Case MDL No. 145 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 7
- < - -~. --
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 145
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Terry Knight, etc. v. The Mayor and City Civil Action
Council of Baltimore, et al. No. 72-1242-H
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Terry Knight, etc. v. Boston Garden Corp., Civil Action
et al. No. 72-3646-G
Terry Knight, etc. v. City of Springfield, Civil Action
Massachusetts, et al. No 72=-3743-G
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
Terry Knight, etc. v. City of Omaha, et al. Civil Action
No. CV73-0-137
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Terry Knight, etc. v. Gana Productions, Civil Action
lnc., et al. No. 1954
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Terry Knight, etc. v. County of Nassau, Civil Action
et al. No. 72 Cl629
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Terry Knight, etc. v. City of Winston- Civil Action
Salem, etc. No. C—-60-WS-73
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Terry Knight, etc. v. Oklahoma City Public Civil Action
Property Authority, et al. No. Civ-73-60B
EASTERN DISYRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Terry Knight, etc. v. Spectrum Arena, Inc., Civil Action
et al. No. 72-2312
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Terry Knight, etc. v. Providence Civie Civil Action
Center Authority, et al. No. 5076
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Terry Knight, etc. v. Concept Entertainment Civil Action
Industries, Inc., et al. No. 73-152

-. Case MDL No. 145 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of 7
a . * -3=
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 145
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Terry Knight, etc. v. City of Knoxville, Civil Action
Tennessee, et al. No. 8173
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Terry Knight, etc. v. James Armistead, Civil Action
et al. No. 6878
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Terry Knight, ete. v. City of Memphis, Civil Action
Tennessee, et al. No. 73+56
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Terry Knight, etc. v. City of Richmond, Civil Action
Virginia, et al. No. 48-73-R
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Terry Knight, etc. v. National Shows, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. CH-73-CA-29
" SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Terry Knight, etc. v. Levinson & Ross, Civil Action
et al. No. 72 Civ. 3996
Terry Knight, etc. v. Madison Square Civil Action
Garden Corp., et al. No. 72 Civ. 5110
Terry Knight, etc. v. American Broad- Civil Action
casting Company, Inc., et al. No. 73 Civ. 346
Mark Farner, et al. v. Terry Knight, Civil Action
et al. No. 72 Civ. 2026
Terry Knight, etc. v. Arlen Realty & Civil Action
Development Corp., et al. No. 73 Civ. 3484