*1 is still Florida proceedings Pretrial district. SE- CAESAR’S PALACE moving Atkins there and are well CURITIES LITIGATION. thorough grasp developed No. 110. him to issues, enable which will factual Litigation. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation supervise toward this entire Nov. expeditious conclusion.' that, pursuant all actions Schedule A District of consent of Clyde Atkins for co- the Honorable C. the actions in above- already captioned district. California District Northern Mo- al. v. Nissan Ingram, et C 0874—SW —74 — Co., Ltd., et al.
tor Colorado
District (formerly Replin),
Sanderson 74-354 Co., Nissan Motor et al. Ltd., Connecticut
District
et al. Kleinman v. Nissan Motor Co., H74 — District of Illinois
Northern Motor
Jackson, etc. v. Nissan C 1478 et al. Co., Ltd., Louisiana
Eastern District of See also 360 Cynthia Riley, al. v. Nissan 74-2009 Ltd., et al. Co., Motor Eastern Missouri Co., Nissan Ltd., Hitt v. Motor 74-228 C(l) Jersey
Supreme Co. Title v. Nissan Co., Motor Ltd., et al. New Mexico et al. v. Novak, Motor Nissan Ltd.,
Co., No. 74-212
Northern District of Texas
Eakles v. Nissan Co., Motor Ltd., No. 4-74-112
DOM, EDWARD EDWIN ROBSON, BECKER, A. WILLIAM H. LORD, III, JOSEPH S. and STANLEY Judges WEIGEL, of the Panel. PER CURIAM. acquisition involves the
of Caesar’s Palace hotel and casino lo- cated in Vegas, Nevada, by Las Caesars World, Inc., a Lum’s, successor to Inc. private Seven actions and an action the Securities and presently pending sion are in the South- York, ern New while two private other actions have been institut- ed in the District of Nevada and in the Southern these Florida. Of private purport actions, six class actions, brought individually, one two are derivative actions on behalf private Plaintiffs all World. actions are shareholders tracking World complaint, they charge de- the SEC’s violations of the federal fendants with laws connection with securities purchase of Caesar’s Palace.
Defendant Caesars World moves the Panel to transfer all actions to the Southern District of for coordinated or consolidated proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § parties oppose 1407. Several the motion allegedly because their actions do significant share common with New York shareholder opposes actions. The SEC be transfer public quite cause its action is different private from nature support transfer, Other argue that either Nevada or transferee forum. We find that these com actions involve mon factual issues and that their trans fer to York will serve best OPINION AND ORDER pro and witnesses and will *, ALFRED P. MURRAH Before mote efficient conduct
Chairman, WIS- and JOHN MINOR litigation.1 *Although Judge present expedite at Murrah was not processing 1. To of this hearing, has, the consent previously he the of with entered an order parties, participated transferring in this decision. these actions to the opposes legislative exemption Matthews
Plaintiff transfer The sole is accord- Florida action.2 He his asserts that ed to antitrust enforcement actions disparate scope brought by his from the action is the United States. 28 U.S.C. 1407(g).4 agree other or derivative class We do not only position including individual involves claims different in nature from the it is *3 predicated pretrial proceedings is other actions because or consolidated will upon misrepresentations delay securing prompt injunc- oral and incom cause in plete press upon conducting and not pretrial releases mis tive In relief. such leading prospectuses. proceedings, judge Defendant Laven the transferee thal, great Krekstein, flexibility tailoring pretrial Horwath Horwath a & divergent the does contends that action schedule to the accommodate questions parties separate not interests share common of the in the pri gauge Specifically, the because it other actions focuses he is free to marily appropriate Lum’s restaurant and fran the on extent of coordination chising operations and not on ac Lum’s between the tions, and the ac- SEC quisition Finally, inhibiting of Palace. without in the the Caesar’s least push injunctive prompt the that SEC’s for relief. SEC asserts investiga completion extensive its National Liti- of Student any 1311, (J.P.M. discovery, gation, of tions involvement and L.1973). remaining the its action with delay in the would unwarranted cause an favoring parties Those transfer have injunctive granting prompt for of relief suggested variety districts the a of as public’s protection. the appropriate forum. most parochial arguments persuasive Notwithstanding typical These the favoring clearly present viewpoints particu- com- a because the actions of forum, All find mon of of the com- we the fact. lar transferee plaints (including and the Matthews forum is the Southern most virtually Margóles actions) contain York. That district is District of New clearly point in acquisition ac- same asserted of SEC the focal concerning parties, Lum’s of most of the tion because it where Therefore, potential transfer is and relevant docu- Palace. witnesses Caesar’s necessary duplication addition, In discov- to avoid needless ments are located. actions, including just discovery promote ery and of to York and the New litigation. Also, action, than more advanced efficient conduct of the single Therefore, trans- actions to a district in the other actions. transfer of all precludes possibility of to that district will inconsistent fer of these actions majority by of a of coordinate for decisions courts jurisdiction. their witnesses. and Furthermore, deny pending exempt A request Schedule that we Dis- than the Southern entirely 1407 treatment. districts other from Section arising plainant laws. the antitrust under or coordinated pretrial proceedings pursuant herein include those as used to ‘Antitrust laws’ consolidated 15, per opinion of October in the Act to curiam acts referred 1407. U.S.C. 730; (38 1914, 15 U.S.C. Stat. as amended reasons for our decision. embodies the 19, 12), the Act June and include also Lum’s, Inc., al., 2. S.D. 13, 1526; (49 13a 15 U.S.C. Stat. 1936 13b) Fla., Action No. 72-617-Civ. 26, 1914, September as the Act al., Lum’s, Inc., Margoles S. 117; (52 116, 21, Stat. added March D.N.Y., Action No. 72-Civ. 664. 4A 56) ; include section shall not 1914, 15, added as apply of October Nothing Act section shall to this 15a). 282; (69 July 15 U.S.C. Stat. States is com- action in the United be, the attached Schedule A involve common York of New trict questions of fact and that transfer of hereby are, to the Southern single con- these actions district for co- with the York of New Hon- sent of that sitting des- would serve the convenience Charles orable parties and witnesses and would fur- or consolidated ignation, pursuant ther the and efficient conduct pretrial proceedings, U. S.C. § that district and that all actions on the at- It is ordered pending A
tached Schedule districts hearing sis Litigation, 368 in In re World, senting porated, Inc., et corporated, sion v. C.A. No. LV— (J.P.M.L.1973). C.A. Ruthellen Cope, Matthew Mark Matthews Antone Securities & Lawrence Kraut ell, McElnea, Jr., et Zarowitz, et Edward Samo, et al. Samuel World, Matthew Rachel Brooks, The I would et the reasons set al. Inc., Inc., Lum's, Silver, al. F. L. Fenichel Margóles, 72-617-Civ) et held, et et Gregorio 1808) al. al. et National Student Exchange not coordinate part): et al. al. Inc. et papers submitted v. etc. v. Caesars having found, upon al. v. Lum's In- v. al. al. (S.D. of New York etc. Lum's, v. SCHEDULE ORDER William v. (D.Nevada, v. Jerome Earl Pow- v. al. v. Commis- Florida, Jay Incor- forth Lum's the other actions of the Panel H. J. A or consolidate Civil Action Civil Civil No. No. Civil Civil No. Civil Civil No. Civil 72No. No. Civil Civil No. 71No. my dissent 72 Civ. [71] 71 Civ. listed on 71 Civ. Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action *4 Action Civ. Civ. Civ. Civ. Civ. Civ. Civ. (dis- [664] [101] [5323] [1145] [5687] [5470] [5342] ba- [5375] World, Ruthellen Inc., Antone F. sion Securities & Inc., et al. ell, Edward Lawrence Kraut Samo, et McElnea, Jr., et Zarowltz, Matthew World, Inc., et al. Samuel hereafter. and listed Rachel ceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § coordinated or consolidated court, assigned other than the ferred to the A full et v. Lum's al. Nevada District of Inc., et Brooks, al. Silver, L. Margóles, etc. v. Lum's and, with the consent Margóles v. al. Cope, et District of Florida Gregorio and the same al. Fenichel opinion and Inc., al. et al. v. Caesars etc. v. sitting by Lum's, William H. v. v. Earl Pow- v. Lum's al. Jay Jerome Inc., order will be Honorable Charles J. designation, No. 72—617—Civ- No. LV—1808 No. 72 No. 71 Civ. 5323 No. 72 Civ. 1145 Civil No. pretrial pro- that district NCR 71 Civ. 5687 71 Civ. 5470 72 Civ. 101 71 Civ. 5342 Action Civ. Civ. trans- filed