IN RE: Air West, Inc., Securities LItigation

Case MDL No. 177 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 5
URICIAL PANEL	ON
HULTIDiRT RL LS pion
BEFORE T
0 HE Tprotar PANEL, 12 1974
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION...	1 ii0WARD
IN RE AIR WEST, INC. ) ]
SECURITIES LITIGATION y DOCKET NO. 177
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
This litigation emanates from the December 1968
acquisition of Air West, Inc. by Summa Corp., a successor
to Hughes Tool Co. Plaintiffs in actions filed in the
Northern District of California and the District of Nevada
purport to represent a similar class of Air West shareholders
and allege that the conduct of defendants in connection with
the acquisition violated the federal securities laws. Addi-
tionally, an individual action containing similar allegations
of securities laws violations has been filed in the District
of Arizona. Certain defendants have moved to transfer these
actions to the Northern District of California for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407. Only plaintiff Anderson in the California action
*
Judges Murrah and Becker were unable to attend the hearing
and, therefore, took no part in either the consideration
or decision of this matter.

Case MDL-No. 177 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 5
. - —_ 2 -—
opposes the motion. We find that these actions involve common
questions of fact and that their transfer to the Northern
District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings, pursuant to Section 1407, will best serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Because of the similarities of the factual and class
allegations, movants argue that transfer of these actions pur-
suant to Section 1407 is necessary to avoid duplica-
tion of discovery and inconsistent Rule 23 determinations.
Plaintiff Anderson, however, opposes transfer on the ground
that the three actions contain divergent legal theories of
liability and, as a result, involve limited common questions |
of fact, which are not sufficiently complex to warrant transfer.
In addition, plaintiff argues that plaintiffs in the two class
actions seek to protect substantially different interests of
the Air West shareholders and, therefore, there is no danger
of conflicting class determinations absent transfer.
We agree with movants that complex common questions
of fact exist, which can be resolved more efficiently and
expeditiously by transfer of these actions to a single district
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Indeed,
when two or more complaints assert comparable allegations
against identical defendants based upon similar transactions
and events, common factual questions are presumed. See
in re Professional Hockey Antitrust Litigation, 369 F. Supp. 1119

Case MDL No. 177 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 5
- 3 -
(J.P.M.L. 1974); In re Seeburg-Commonwealth United Merger ‘
Litigation, 362 F. Supp. 568 (J.P.M.L. 1973). Furthermore,
the mere fact that divergent legal theories are asserted
arising out of the same substantive claims and allegations
presents no bar to a Section 1407 transfer. In re Holiday
Magic Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp. 1400 (J.P.M.L.,
filed May 13, 1974); In re Westec Corp., 307 F. Supp. 559
(J.P.M.L. 1969).
Moreover, the appearance of conflicting class repre-
sentation claims between the California and Nevada actions
militates strongly in favor of transfer. In re Equity Funding
Corporation of America Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp.
1378 (J.P.M.L. 1974); In re Telephone Charge Antitrust Litiga-
tion, 341 F. Supp. 771 (J.P.M.L. 1972). While plaintiff
Anderson seeks to represent a broader class of Air West share-
holders than plaintiff Beecher in the Nevada action, the
Anderson complaint encompasses the entirety of the alleged
transactions and claims found in the Beecher complaint. Trans-
fer will eliminate any possibility of inconsistent determina-
tions of the class action questions involved in this litigation.
See In re Plumbing Fixtures Cases, 298 F. Supp. 484, 493 |
(J.P.M.L. 1968).
The Northern District of California is the most
appropriate transferee forum. Discovery in Anderson has
progressed steadily in that district and the transferee court
is thoroughly familiar with all factual issues raised in this

| Case MDL No. 177 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 5
- 4 -
litigation. In addition, the only opposition to transfer
of all actions to that district comes from the plaintiff in }
that district. Thus, it certainly can be said that transfer
there will be for the convenience of the parties and their
witnesses.
: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on
the attached Schedule A pending in districts other than the
Northern District of California be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Northern District of California and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
Alfonso J. Zirpoli for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending in that district.

Case MDL No. 177 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 177
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Patricia Scott Anderson, et al. Civil Action
v. Air West, Inc., et al. No. C-73-529-AJ%
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Dorothy Beecher, et al. v. Civil Action
Howard R. Hughes, et al. No. LV-74-15 (RDF)
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Stanley Sipiora v. Howard Hughes, Civil Action
et al. No. 74-107-TYC