Brown v. Amdahl Corp.

238 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25031, 2002 WL 31873370
CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
DecidedDecember 16, 2002
DocketNo. 1499
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (Brown v. Amdahl Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Amdahl Corp., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25031, 2002 WL 31873370 (jpml 2002).

Opinion

TRANSFER ORDER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of two actions in the Southern District of New York and one action in the District of New Jersey.1 Plaintiffs in the three actions move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the litigation in the Southern District of New York. Defendants Amdahl Corporation; Citigroup Inc.; Citicorp; Citibank, N.A.; Commerzbank AG; Dresdner Bank AG; Credit Suisse Group; Deutsche Bank AG; General Motors Corp.; IBM Corp.; Mobil Corp.; UBS AG; and Unisys Corporation initially opposed centralization; however, at oral argument, defendant Credit Suisse Group asserted that many, if not all, of these defendants as well as several defendants named in related actions now also support centralization in the Southern District of New York.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these three actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Southern District of New York will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions seek reparations on behalf of present and former residents of South Africa who allegedly were victims of crimes related to apartheid in that country. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus desirable in order to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

The Southern District of New York stands out as the appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. We note that both moving plaintiffs and numerous defendants now agree upon Section 1407 centralization there.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the action [1381]*1381pending outside the Southern District of New York is transferred to that district and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Richard C. Casey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re South African Apartheid Litigation
238 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25031, 2002 WL 31873370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-amdahl-corp-jpml-2002.