IN RE: Transit Company Tire Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 111 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 5
: JUDE Pew oy Co
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL MALT canon g Co	ON ERLE . .
MULTID{3TRICT LITIGATION WAY (7 SEE
PATRIOIAD my E Co ~ .
IN RE TRANSIT COMPANY TIRE ) I Or pte 3d I PE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. LIESGr iici. i : :
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH*, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WI3TOM, SETTER
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, RE Co }
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF 4 SEES oo
THE PANEL : So
PER CURIAM .
Five private treble damage antitrust actic= have co : SE
been brought in five different districts against thc major :
manufacturers of special mileage commercial tires uscu by Co Co
transit companies. Plaintiffs in one cf the actions moved a ee
the Panel for an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, trans- Co a
ferring these cases to a single district for cecordinn:-.d N
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All partiss a: ze tL
that these actions should be transturred to a =i... ausoerict 0
for pretrial proceedings, but disagree on the =~jectinn of Ce 7
the transferee district. On the basis of the papers riled :
and the hearing held, we finu that thace actions inv.ive ’
common questions of fact and that transter to the Western : . :
District of Missouri will best serve the convenience cf Co :
* : : R
Judge Alfred P. Murrah took no part in the consic:<ration E
or decision of this matter. oo

Case MDL No. 111 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 5
- 2 -
® all parties and witnesses and will further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation.
In each action the same defendants are charged
with combining and conspiring, in violation of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, to make special mileage commercial tires
available to transit companies only under leasing arrangements
that allegedly preclude the transit companies from changing
their supplier. The antitrust allegations clearly involve
factual matters common to all casc¢s and all parties will benefit
from a pretrial program supervised by a single judge. Further-
more, at least three of the cases contain similar nationwide
class action allegations and transfer to a single district
eliminates the possibility of inconsistent class determinations.
® The only question disputed by the parties is the
selection of the transferee district. The Central District
of California, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
the Western District of Missouri are asserted by different
groups of plaintiffs as the most appropriate transferee forum.
The defendants, whose principal offices are either in Akron,
Ohio or Detroit, Michigan, prefer the Western District of
Missouri. We find the arguments favoring the Western District
of Missouri the most persuasive.
L Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., General Tire & Rubber Co.,
B. F. Goodrich Co., Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., and
Uniroyal, Inc.
®

Case MDL No. 111 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 5
- 3 —-
® At present, actions are pending in four widely-
separated states - Florida, Pennsylvania, California and
Missouri. Because of Kansas City's geographically central
location, it is easily accessible from all parts of the
country and provides a more convenient forum to all parties
than either Los Angeles or Philadelphia. Furthermore, it is
quite likely that similar actions will be filed in other
districts and as this litigation becomes more national
in scope any justification for transferring the cases
to either an East or West Coast location will diminish.
Cf., In re Government Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust Litigation,
328 F. Supp. 218, 219 (J.P.M.L. 1971); In re Air Fare
[ Litigation, 322 F. Supp. 1013, 1015 (J.P.M.L. 1971). Anotherfactor favoring the Western District of Missouri as the
transferee district is the current status of its civil docket. >
See In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions, 337 F. Supp. 1337,
1340 (J.P.M.L. 1972).
IT IS THEREFORF ORDERED that all actions on the
attached Schedule A. pending in districts other than the
Western District of Missouri be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Western District of Missouri and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
2/ The most recent statistics indicate the following median
intervals from filing of a civil comnlaint to trial:
Western District of Missouri --- 9 months
| ESSECan BISERISt of Sammioividia-103%°hsntns
See 1972 Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative
® Office of the United States Courts, Table C-10 at A-38.

Case MDL No. 111 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 5
® - 4 -
Elmo B. Hunter for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.

Case MDL No. 111 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5
( SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 111
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Southern California Rapid Transit District, Civil Action
et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., et al. No. 72-1479-FW
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
City and County of San Francisco v. Goodyear Civil Action
Tire & Rubber Co., et al. No. 72-1183-RFP
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
City of Cleveland, etc. v. Goodyear Tire Civil Action
& Rubber Co., et al. No. 72-718
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Dade County v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Civil Action
et al. No. 72-826-Civ-NCR
¢ Uniroyal Inc. v. Tranist Co. of the Palm Civil Action	Beaches, Inc., et al. No. 71-1672-Civ-CF
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
D. L. Brenner, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Civil Action
Rubber Co., et al. No. 20411-4