IN RE: Holiday Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 124 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of5
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL . . = . _
® , * MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION SA
IN RE HOLIDAY MAGIC SECURITIES ) Ly, is
AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO.~'124
- 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 five actions pending in
four different districts against Holiday Magic, Inc. and its
officers and directors. Plaintiffs in the action pending in
the Western District of Pennsylvania move the Panel for an order
® transferring all actions to a single district for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
All parties except plaintiff Gonzalez favor transfer of their
respective actions. We find that all of these actions involve
common questions of fact and that transfer to the Northern Dis-
trict of California will best serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
1/
the litigation. ~
Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants’
* Although Judges Wisdom and Lord were unable to attend
the Panel hearing, they have, with the consent of all
parties, participated in this decision.
l/ In order to expedite the pretrial processing of this
litigation, we previously issued a brief order transferring
9 these actions to the Northern District of California for	coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under
28 U.S.C. §1407. This per curiam opinion embodies the
reasons for our decision.

Case MDL No. 124 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 5
. “2 -
® activities concerning Holiday Magic's multilevel sales and
distribution system were fraudulent and in violation of state
and federal securities and antitrust laws. In addition,
plaintiffs in each action purport to represent a class comprised
of distributors of Holiday Magic products.
Because all actions in this litigation clearly raise
common factual issues and contain similar class allegations,
transfer to a single district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings is necessary in order to avoid duplication
of discovery and eliminate the possibility of inconsistent class
determinations. See, e.g., In re Glenn W. Turner Enterprises
Litigation, 355 F. Supp. 1402 (J.P.M.L. 1973).
® Plaintiff Gonzalez opposes transfer on the ground that
- he has filed a motion for summary judgment in the trauslerus
court and that if it is granted the action will be concluded,
thereby negating any need for transfer under Section 1407.
Plaintiff concedes, however, that transfer would be appropriate
if the motion is denied. Inasmuch as the criteria for transfer
of this action under Section 1407 are clearly satisfied and
the transferee judge has the power to entertain a motion for
summary judgment, In re Butterfield Patent Infringement Litiga-
tion, 328 F. Supp. 513, 514 (J.P.M.L. 1970), there is no reason
for denying transfer of this action.
We find that the Northern District of California is
the most appropriate transferee forum for this litigation.
® The two actions already pending in that district ”

Case MDL No. 124 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 5
. -3 =
® have been transferred there for all purposes
under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). The district selected by the Section
1404 (a) transferor judges and the reasons given therefor are
normally entitled to great weight in selecting the most appro-
priate transferee district for Section 1407 proceedings. See,
In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation, 320 F. Supp. 1404, 1406
(J.P.M.L. 1971). Furthermore, Holiday Magic's home office is
in the Northern District of California and, as a result, many of
the anticipated witnesses and relevant documents are located
there. And finally, it appears that the actions already pending
in the Northern District of California are in a more advanced
stage of pretrial proceedings than the other actions in this
® litigation.IT IS TICRCIFORE CRDERED Lhat 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 Lloyd H.
Burke, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions already pending
in that district and listed on Schedule A.
®

| 0/15 Page	4 of 5	Case MDL No. 124 Document 2 Filed 04/3
0) SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 124® NORTHERN. DISTRICT oF CALIFORNIA
Jennette McKissack, et ai. Ve. Holiday Magic, Civil Action: Inc, No. C=72-1992~LHB
Larry E., Anderson v, Holiday Magic, Iac, © Civil Action
No. C=73-0225-Rip: SOUTEERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK :
Rafael Pp, Gonzalez v, Holiday Magic, Inc. . Civil Action :No. 72 Civ. 383%
: EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+. James Dione v. Holiday Magic, Inc. Civil Action
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA :
Prank I. Marshall, et al. Ve. Goliday Magic, Civil ActionInc. aE No. 72-899
[J |

Case MDL No. 124 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5
BA . JUDICIAL AARE DAN oo :
| MUETIEIS TRIES LITIAATORN EEBEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL TEER ILED AEE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Cu L=p 18H EE AE
{PATRICIA D: HOWARD RTS
IN RE HOLIDAY MAGIC SECURITIES AND ) DOCKET: CERN Of JHE PANEL | | |
ANTITRUST LITIGATION )
)
James J. Ward, et. al. v. Holiday )
Magic, Inc., et. al., N. D. California)
Civil Action No. C-74-1067-LHB ) SE .
OPINION AND ORDER SEE
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, Se
EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER*, JOSEPH S. LORD, III¥, :
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE
PANEL
PER CURIAM oo
The Panel previously transferred all actions in this Co “
1294
litigation to the Northern District of California and, with Tet77}
the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable 6
Lloyd H. Burke for coordinated or consolidated pretrial Co
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. In re Holiday
Magic Securities and Antitrust Litigation, 368 F. Supp. 806
(J.P.M.L. 1973); 372 F. Supp. 1167 (J.P.M.L. 1974); 375 F.
Supp. 1400 (J.P.M.L. 1974); 384 F. Supp. 1403 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
Plaintiffs in the Ward action have moved the Panel for an order
remanding Ward to its transferor court, the Northern District
of Illinois. Several defendants ia Ward oppcse remand. : .
* Judges Becker and Lord tcck no part in the consideration :
or decision of this matter. Co