IN RE: Motion Picture "Standard Accessories" and "Pre-Vues" Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 93 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 5
HEE
\ pron MEL my
9 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL Ll eA	vw | ON eno
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION HHT 20 197,FATeim
IN RE MOTION PICTURE "STANDARD ) CLii	i 0pe
ACCESSORIES" AND "PRE-VUES" ) DOCKET NO. 93:
ANTITRUST LITIGATION )
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN
A. ROBSON* WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL*
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs in four treble damage antitrust actions
pending in two separate districts move the Panel for transfer
to a single district for pretrial proceedings pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407. Two plaintiffs, Poster Exchange and Exhibitors
C } Poster Exchange, %/ are distributors of motion picture advertising
accessories (referred to as "standard accessories") to motion
picture exhibitors. The third plaintiff, Houck Theatres, |
is a motion picture exhibitor.
Poster Exchange and Exhibitors Poster Exchange
allege that the manufacturers of the standard accessories
conspired to deprive them of the opportunity to distribute
* Judge John Minor Wisdom recused himself and did not parti-
cipate in these proceedings. Although Judge Edwin A. Robson
was not present at the hearing, he has, with the consent of all
parties, participated in this decision.
1l/ Exhibitors Poster Exchange has two separate actions against
the same defendants pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The second action, we are informed, was filed in August 1971
and presents factual and legal issues identical to those raised
in the earlier action, except that damages are sought for a
subsequent period. Because of this identity, this action has
( no bearing on our decision and no further reference to it need	be made.

Case MDL No. 93 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 5
0
= those accessories in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act. Houck Theatres alleges that these manufacturers have
conspired to monopolize the standard accessory business and
the distribution of short motion picture advertising films
(referred to as "pre-vues"), depriving it and the national
class of motion picture exhibitors it seeks to represent
of competitive prices for these items. Co
Some knowledge of the procedural posture of |
these actions is necessary to an understanding of our
decision. In the Poster Exchange suit, filed in the Northern
District of Georgia, summary judgment in favor of six of |
the seven defendants was recently reversed on appeal and
® plaintiff was granted the opportunity to demonstrate, if
it could, the post-1961 acts that substantively support its
antitrust allegations. Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National
Screen Service Corp., F.2d (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 1972). |
In the Exhibitors Poster Exchange action, filed in the Eastern
District of Louisiana, summary judgment obtained by the defen- oo
dants in the district court was reversed on appeal and the
action was remanded to permit plaintiff to introduce evidence,
if any, of post~1961 antitrust violations. Exhibitors Poster
Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Corp., 421 F.2d 1313 (5th | oo
Cir. 1970). The district judge subsequently denied Exhibitors’
request for a preliminary injunction and reminded plaintiff
® ‘ | | |

Case MDL No. 93 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 5
® . : -— 3 —=F that it was relegated to post-1961 activities to prove its Co
antitrust violations. In the Houck Theatres action, pending
in the Northern District of Georgia, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion to maintain the action as a class action
and also denied subsequent motions for reconsideration or,
alternatively, for an interlocutory appeal of this ruling. oo
Counsel representing all plaintiffs move the
Panel to transfer these actions to a single district but,
significantly, has not specified the district most appro- :
priate for transfer. Indeed, it appears that counsel's
motion is not based on factors cognizable under 28 U.S.C.
: §1407 but on the prospect that another district judge may
® be more favorably disposed to his contentions. More
specifically, it appears from the papers filed and the
arguments presented at the hearing that Exhibitors Poster _
Exchange is dissatisfied with the discovery limitations |
imposed on it and that Houck Theatres is dissatisfied with |
the rejection of its class action requests.
: The Panel is not vested with statutory authority |
to review the decisions of district courts, whether they Co
are transferor or transferee courts. Cf., In re Plumbing
Fixtures Litigation, 322 F. Supp. 1047 (J.P.M.L. 1971). We N
are only authorized to determine whether transfer of civil
actions to a single district "will be for the convenience
® | oo

Case MDL No. 93 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 5
C} Co CC - 4 - |TT of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and
efficient conduct of such actions." 28 U.S.C. §1407(a). |
oo Nothing in the record before us convinces us that transfer
~~ of these actions would accomplish the objectives of Section |
1407.
. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for
transfer of the actions listed on the attached Schedule A
be, and hereby is, DENIED.
® |
@ | |

Case MDL No. 93 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5
© SCHEDULE	A | DOCKET NO. 93 | |
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA :
The Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen civil Action
Service Corp., et al. : No. 12497
Houck Theatres, Inc., et al. v. National Civil Action Co
Screen Service Corp., et al. No. 12607
_ gy
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA : h
: Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Civil Action
: Screen Service Corp., et al. No. 67-1160
"Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. V. National Civil Action !
Screen Service Corp., et al. No. 71-2222