IN RE: West Coast Bakery Flour Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 146 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 4
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION mT
JEI-2 jog	IN RE WEST COAST BAKERY FLOUR )
ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) POCKET, NO ”, 146 :
OPINION AND ORDER’: Ce
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 two treble damage antitrust
actions, one in the Northern District of California and the other
in the Western District of Washington, against several flour
milling companies. Plaintiffs are commercial bakeries which
purchased flour from the defendants. Several of the defendants
move the Panel for an order transferring the California action
to the Western District of Washington for coordinated or consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Plain-
tiffs and a defendant only in the California action oppose trans-
fer of that action to Washington. We find that these actions
involve common questions of fact and that transfer of the Cali-
fornia action to the Western District of Washington will best
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The parties opposed to transfer argue that the actions
do not raise common questions of fact because the plaintiff
bakeries have widely varying operations. They also contend that
transfer of the California action would contravene the purposes
* Although Judge Lord was not present at the hearing, he has,
with the consent of all parties, participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 146 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 4
. . _ a
of Section 4 of the Clayton Act, which allows victims of price-
fixing conspiracies to sue in any district where a defendant
resides or is found or has an agent. In addition, the California
plaintiff especially stresses that its action contains counter-
claim issues which are totally unrelated to the Washington action
and that the inconvenience of transfer could be:fatal to the
company in view of its present bankruptcy proceedings.
These arguments are not persuasive. Four of the defend-
ants have pleaded nolo contendere to charges of conspiring to fix
prices and the complaints in both treble damage actions track
the language of the criminal indictments and contain allegations
of the same price-fixing scheme. Thus, the actions clearly
contain common questions of fact and transfer is necessary
to prevent needless duplication of discovery. We also note that
similar motions have been filed in both districts concerning
the impoundment of grand jury documents located in Washington
State. Transfer to a single district, therefore, has the salu-
tary effect of eliminating the possibility of inconsistent or
conflicting pretrial rulings.
The contention that there is an inherent conflict
between 28 U.S.C. §1407 and Section 4 of the Clayton Act is also
without merit because a Section 1407 transfer is for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings only and trial of that action
will take place in California. In addition, the counterclaim
issues in the California action, involving the effect of prior
bankruptcy proceedings on the California plaintiff's standing

Case MDL No. 146 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 4
. . Ca.
to sue for antitrust damages, are purely legal in nature and
can be easily resolved by the transferee judge.
The Western District of Washington is the most appro-
priate transferee forum because it is the center of gravity
of this litigation. The original criminal proceedings took
place there, and the majority of relevant documents and
witnesses are located in that district or immediately adjacent
areas. In addition, all parties agree that the Washington
actien has progressed much further in pretrial proceedings
than the California action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on the
attached Schedule A pending in the Northern District of
California be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the
Western District of Washington and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable George H. Boldt for coordi-
nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407 with the action already pending there and listed on
Schedule A.

Case MDL No. 146 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 4
DOCKET NO. 146 SCHEDULE A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Larraburu Bros., Inc. v. Colorado Civil Action
Milling & Elevator Co., et al. No. C~73-673-SW
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
American Bakeries Company v. Fisher Civil Action
Companies, Inc., et al. No. 185-73C2