IN RE: Career Academy Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 98 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 5
C BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL SEU REFERMULTIDISTRIOT LITIGATION id 23 179
IN RE CAREER ACADEMY ) DOCKET NO. 98 Le L
ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) or
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 consists of six actions presently pending :
in five separate districts against Career Academy, Inc., a
Delaware ‘corporation with its principal place of business in
@® Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Career Academy moved the Panel to have all
@--- consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the
Northern District of Illinois. No party opposes transfer, but
several different districts are urged as the appropriate trans-
feree forum. We find that transfer to the Eastern District of
Wisconsin would best serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
‘litigation. |
¥F Although Judges Robson and Lord were not present at the
hearing, they have, with the consent of all parties, partici-
pated in this decision.
9
®

Case MDL No. 98 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 5
‘e ReThe need for transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1407 is clear. Each
complaint alleges in substance that Career Academy has violated
the federal antitrust laws in operating its business of enrolling,
counseling and selling home study and in-residence study courses.
The allegations raise common issues of fact, making transfer neces-
sary to avoid duplication in discovery and inconsistent pretrial
: rulings. And transfer is also necessary to avoid inconsistent
class action determinations. In re Brown Company Securities
Litigation, 325 F. Supp. 307 (J.P.M.L. 1971).
The only point of controversy among the parties is the selec-
® tion of the transferee district. Career Academy requests transferof all cases to the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago), even
@.. its home offices are in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It asserts
that Chicago is far more accessible to the parties from other parts
of the country than is Milwaukee. Defendant also .declares that
the court calendar in the Eastern District of Wisconsin is two to
three months behind the Northern District of Illinois in the
disposition of cases. We are not persuaded by defendant's argu-
ments. In view of the close proximity of Milwaukee to Chicago,
the convenience of travel cannot fairly be stated as a compelling
factor requiring transfer to the latter forum. And although court
9 I/ Class action suits have been filed in the Eastern District) f Pennsylvania and the Northern District of Illinois. Neither
Qo: has ruled on the appropriateness of creating a class.

Case MDL No. 98 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 5
‘> :
congestion is often considered by the Panel in selecting a trans-
feree district, the difference referred to by defendant is insig-
nificant. Nor are we persuaded by the California and Mississippi
plaintiffs' arguments to transfer the actions to the Central
District of California because eighteen of the twenty-three named |
plaintiffs in these actions favor that district. This argument
: ignores the possibility of the transferee judge establishing a
class action on behalf of all franchisees.
The two Wisconsin plaintiffs and the party who filed a class
action suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assert that
9 the Eastern pistrict of Wisconsin is the most appropriate trans-
feree district. We agree. Virtually no discovery has taken place
0. any of these actions. And the majority of plaintiffs' discovery
will be centered in Milwaukee where defendant's documents and a
substantial number of its witnesses are located. Also, Judge Myron
L. Gordon, who has been assigned the Wisconsin cases, has already
heard several motions in connection with them and has acquired
a knowledge of the issues involved in this litigation that is at
least equal to that of the other judges to whom the other cases
have been assigned.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on the
attached Schedule A pending in districts other than the Eastern
2/ Theparty	who filed a class action suit in the Northern
District of Illinois favors that district but does not object
% transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Case MDL No. 98 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 5
ae
( District of Wisconsin be, and the same hereby are, transferredto the Eastern District of Wisconsin and, with the consent
of that court, are assigned to the Honorable Myron L. Gordon
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
fl

Case MDL No. 98 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5
® SCHEDULE A. DOCKET NO. 98
@ EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN	yford Elwonger v. Career Academy, Civil Action
Inc. No. 71 C 409
Fred Katz v. Career Academy, Civil Action i
Inc., No. 71 C 429 P
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Vickey Breeland, et al. v. Career Civil Action 1
Academy, et al. No. 71-392-LTL .
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Hl
Jimmy Brown v. Career Academy, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 71 C 2278
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA a
Morton Baker v. Career Academy, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 71-2697
] SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
@. F. Rakes, et al. v. Career Academy, Civil ActionInc., et al. No. 4353 (R)
Cr
!